>Hell

Implies religious belief. I'll enjoy my maggots, thanks.

>>2
No, the Amish are correct, they are the chosen ones, and we are all going to Hell because we have used the internet.

I expect to see joke-thief and all-round irritating twat Joe Pasquale.

In fact, there is going to be quite a paradox created by his presence in Hell, as for many people the sound of Joe Pasquale shrieking in agony for eternity is in fact Heaven, and frankly Heaven could not be considered Heaven if they let the runty shit up there.

Joe Pasquale, the spark of the war between Heaven and Hell, the harbinger of the Apocalypse.

I expect to see nothing but ugly, goose-bumpy tits when I go there.

Hell is for religious fags. Big news flash...when we die, we die.

>>3

>Joe Pasquale

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>3
Also, his screams form a twisted parody of "I've got a song that will get on your nerves".

>>5
Militant atheism is almost as silly as militant belief-in-deity-X. We have no fucking idea why the universe exists at all, let alone any way to test for creator deities, so calling it with certainty for one side or the other is not logical.

Of course, humanity has had this debate roughly 84 quadrillion times already without getting anywhere.

>>7
Congratulations on not knowing what "atheism" means.

"LOL but you can't prove there isn't a deity LOL!!" YOU FAIL IT (it is logic)

>>7

Congrats, welcome to the "I have no fucking clue as to what anything is" club. If you can't make up your mind what's here, why it's here, etc, then you have no clue if ultimately what you are doing is good/bad, real/not real, etc. If you question the basis of reality, you should be in a mental ward. But here on Earth, we call it science/math and they provide no clue that there's a horned beast living inside a flaming pit in the Earth. Welcome to reality.

>>9
Okay, now then, science and maths are human constructs, specific to human senses, human brain structure and human social development. They say nothing at all about underlying reality, nor indeed can their methods be applied to the most simple human experience of experience itself, let alone unknowable concepts such as universal consciousness.

This is not to say that Christianity isn't anything other than a load of old donkey's bollocks either, but don't fall for the "science is best" dogma.

Science is best at making a profit, therefore is promoted as superior over the far less profitable activity of personal development, the foundation of the better life.

>>10

Yes, it is the closest thing we have to understanding the universe for which we can observe. If we dwell on existential questions, well, we can just say fuckall about fuckall. Nothing can be proven 100% or denied 100% but you have to have some basis for the reality in which the standard person perceives. That's science. You can make up any bullshit you like about what you think reality is, just don't expect everyone to believe it unless it's checksummed against other observers, aka, proven as best it can to the rest of humanity. I may get what you're saying. Reality is relative to the observer, but the total reality in which humans live and deemed relevant for what we do is based upon science, and that's the best we got to make sense of waves of motion which we call light, sound, etc.

>>11
This is not true. The existential questions you are dismissing underpin the validity of the science you are championing.

Don't forget the origin of modern empiricism is Jesuit Theology. There is no fundamental superiority of either approach, it is a question of what we are trying to discuss.

>>12

You are questioning the very basis of reality in which we have derived from logic and you are trying to use logic to argue but failing. If you don't see why, I'd suggest seeking a tutor. You have much to learn with regards to reality.

In science, we must implement axioms, anchors for which to base our knowledge so we can have a base for which is observed and proven to the best of our ability. You are saying that even the axioms for which we base our knowledge on could be wrong. It could be and nothing could be what it seems but can you think of anything better? I think not other than you're just replying to troll.

If you want to play those cards, fuckall is fuckall and I'm right because it's not proven incorrect.

>>12

If the universe can not be understood through observation and testing, then your "existential questions" mean nothing, as there is no basis for any understanding of anything.

>>13
That's not what I did, nor what I meant, which makes your argument a straw man.

It comes down to what is being discussed and what conclusions are to be considered acceptable.

The main flaws that invalidate Christian Theology are that God is presented as Morally Flawless, something that is clearly contradicted in the Book Of Job, and that God is seperate from the Universe yet supposedly omnipresent. These are conclusions you can draw from the literature of the myth itself, without the need to recourse to empricial observation, nor indeed can you investigate using empirical observation.

The fundamental building blocks of human reasoning are not science and maths, these are late-in-the-day off-shoots of theology and philosophy.

>>15

ur 2 smart 2 b on here

>>14
Correct. If all humans were suddenly wiped out tommorrow, our science and mathematics would go with us, yet the Universe would keep on moving.

Again it comes down to what we are discussing and what conclusions we consider to be acceptable that determine the best course of inquiry, and no course of inquiry can be considered final or definitive.

We champion science in society because we make the most profit out of it, pure and simple, and if you look at the sorts of so-called spiritual practices that are considered above ridicule, they are the ones that rake in big cash for someone too. The rest can be safely flushed as "a waste fo time", because we live in a social climate where profit is officially considered superior to any other activity, despite the rather obvious human experience that this simply isn't the case.

>>17 suddenly wiped out tommorrow, our science and mathematics would go with us

So 7 would stop being a prime number, circles would no longer have a fixed ratio of circumference to diameter, atoms would no longer form molecular bonds, cause wouldn't precede effect, the speed of light would change, and planets would fall out of orbit? I know a lot of you people that think that way, even if you personally think that example is a little extreme.

>>16
Nah, I used to be a boot-clicking "science is best" type myself, an unexamined prejudice foised on us by every single offical media source, and made so much more compelling by the visible failures of the three big organised religions.

It's not a position that stands up under the most cursory scrutiny though, but it does allow you to bully people in public who express a contrary view that isn't fully expressed, i.e. most Christians, so it's not all bad I suppose.

>>19

What do you propose as an alternate method for understanding the universe, since you feel that observation/reason/science are fatally flawed? If the evidence of our senses (the only input methods we have) are untrustable, then what do you propose as a replacement?

"Intuition"? "Feelings"? "Truthiness"? "Getting high on weed & meditating until some random-ass thought comes to me & then restructuring my life around that"? "Making shit up"?

>>17

Because profit drives humanity forward. The basic needs for which we have to have to live cannot be attained without profit in some form or fashion. Profit can be basic sustinence, not necessarily money. You act as though this is something new and there's something wrong with it. Go tell life to stop driving science forward by rewarding us when we use it to survive.

Anything can be anything in your point of view but in our comparatively narrow observations as minute human beings in this giant universe, we have to observe the relevant for which we can use to survive if we want to survive and not dwell on existential questions so much.

We now have the luxury in modern times for most people to dwell on these questions and occasionally they may prompt us to take a different look at things and may be of some success but that view is far out there and mostly unrewarding with practical value.

I'm not discrediting distant viewing, I'm just trying to give more credit to the tried and true scientific process of discovering new things.

>>18

>So 7 would stop being a prime number, circles would no longer have a fixed ratio of circumference to diameter, atoms would no longer form molecular bonds,

All of these things are human constructs, and would die out with us, yet nothing in the Universe that throw up the sensory input that generate them would change.

>cause wouldn't precede effect

Ho ho, kindly prove this is so. Protip: you can't, it's an assumption that can't be proved, it's kept philosophers up worrying for centuries.

> the speed of light would change

The speed of light does change in a singularity. Besides, if all humans are dead, how does that affect the speed of light? Poor example in the first instance, and proving my point in the second.

>and planets would fall out of orbit?

What is the connection between humans dying out and the planets maintaining their orbits? Again proving my point, not yours.

>I know a lot of you people that think that way, even if you personally think that example is a little extreme.

No, you don't know us at all. You simply are given social permission to sound off that science is best without thinking about how absurd this position really is.

Science is best at determining acceptable conclusions to discussions where using science gives that acceptable conclusion, no more or less.

>>19

>It's not a position that stands up under the most cursory scrutiny though

Ok, so give us one which is and I guarantee I could shoot it down with some scrutiny. Everything can be scrutinized. So this makes me think you're a liar, a troll, or just plain ignorant and/or high.

>>7
Agnostic - the word you are missing.

>>22

Human constructs. No, they are observations of what is. Whether it's fake in some form or another, they are truly causing us to observe them the way they do and if humans and the universe are one or we exist in it, then there is no such thing as just a pure human construct because the universe in which we live affects our observations.

Yes, the universe would be roughly what it is without us but there would be no universe. It may be but our language we speak now is a human construct, the mere observation of the universe could be a human construct and the point of even speaking about it would be moot. The existence of the universe could be a human construct so it's pointless to even go there. So what's your point?

>>23
There are none, that's the point. It's what works to draw an acceptable conclusion to a line of discussion.

>>22

>Profit can be basic sustinence, not necessarily money.

This is true, but not when speaking about the constant promotion of "science is best" in consumer cultures. It can be demonstrated that this fundamentalism is linked to "what makes most money", and is in total disregard for quality of life.

>we have to observe the relevant for which we can use to survive

Something we achieved a very long time ago without modern science or mathematics, yet we went on to develop these disciplines nonetheless.

>We now have the luxury in modern times for most people to dwell on these questions and occasionally they may prompt us to take a different look at things and may be of some success but that view is far out there and mostly unrewarding with practical value.

Well, you've just proved my point in more ways than one. The term "practical value" here is analogous to "makes a financial profit", unless you care to try to wriggle out of it?

Two basic flaws in the points you raise are that (a) consumer societies are inherently superior to all others (b) consumer societies are inevitable outcomes of human endeavour, both without foundation. You also overlook the fact that in order to maintain our current consumer societies we surpress and deny resources to over 80% of the world population, hardly a good thing for humanity as a whole would you say?

>>25
My point is that without humans, the labels you refer to are meaningless. Ask a cat.

Therefore the attempt to elevate these labels above other labels we may ascribe to the same phenomena is only meaningful when they help us reach a conclusion to a discussion that is more acceptable.

>>24

Ok, so what is the agnostic process to make new discoveries? There is none because you don't know shit about shit. Anything can be anything. We just don't know and won't know the very root of existence so why even try, right? You can sit on the toilet all your life or you can take a shit. Which one?

I'm a theist towards believing that the universe as a whole is intelligent for housing intelligent beings but I'm atheist as far as the christian god goes. There's so little logic in it and it hasn't been proven true by a lot of people. Though saying the universe is intelligent and perhaps an entity is analogous to our complex neurons in us, some sort of entity. We are nothing more than simple particles pieced together to form complex ones, and so is the universe. Though if you don't see it that way, fine. I get most of what you're saying, but it's quite interesting debating the topic though.

>>26
Am I getting this right? You are comparing science and religion as if these were complementary and equal choices? And according to your reasoning science is prevalent because it provides sustenance and tangible values?

>>26

What you're saying is false. If by your definition of quality of life, you see is as man being able to live a cozier lifestyle, then no. Profit/competition/war have driven man to do away with the weak and so the strong and best endowed survive. Now we are so well at surviving, we can sit on our sofas, watch our tv's, have conditioned air, etc after we get home from a comparatively easy job for which we probably had the luxury of choosing. Competition is good for man.

You seem to be denying the work/reward of pretty much all of life is flawed for advancing it. Tell that to life, but that's the way it is.

>You seem to be denying the work/reward of pretty much all of life is flawed for advancing it. Tell that to life, but that's the way it is.

work/reward concept used by... Sorry for the incoherence, I need to get some sleep.

>>28
The concept that the basic building block of the Universe is consciousness itself can be demonstrated in theory, and does not contradict any empirical observations we care to make within it. We just cannot empirically investigate this theory.

Does this suggest that science is somehow lacking? Not at all.

Does it suggest that the theory is somehow unsound. Again, not at all.

It is however completely financially irrelevant, and therefore relegated to "interesting at best" in our modern society.

Further, considering the implications of shared consciousness are actively discouraged in a culture that maintains itself through violent surpression of others.

>>32

> Does it suggest that the theory is somehow unsound. Again, not at all.

Of course it does. If a theory is not testable, it is invalid. If there is no evidence for something, it doesn't exist.

> It is however completely financially irrelevant

More that just "financially" irrelevant, it has no meaning or existence or relevance to anything at all.

>>32

>It is however completely financially irrelevant, and therefore relegated to "interesting at best" in our modern society.

Well, but the hypothesis can not be tested. And if it was, the outcome would have no direct impact on our understanding of the unverse. What would be the implications if it was true?

Pedro, you're a lot like the teenage girls you love such much -- they're awesome when they're just flashing their underage tits and such, but then they have to open their mouths and ruin it all.

>>29
In general, we may chose theology or science or indeed many of the other modes of human reasoning depending on the discussion, and the conclusion that we consider to be acceptable.

We champion "science is best" in our consumer because it makes a profit for someone to do so, just as "church is best" used to be employed in the old days, again because of the profit that was making someone. It doesn't follow that either are best in any given discussion.

>>30
Hmm... I hear the sofas in the slave labour camps that made the components of my luxurious computer in China are quite comfy.

>Profit/competition/war have driven man to do away with the weak

Nonsense. History has demonstrated that humans existed without war, profit or competition proir to approximately 3000BC for what is speculated to be a quarter of a million years at least. In fact it can be demonstrated that hujmanity went into decline as a whole when we adopted this non-cooperative approach life.

>You seem to be denying the work/reward of pretty much all of life is flawed for advancing it

Rubbish. Our rewards in a consumer society are at the expense of the vast experience of humanity in existence. I don't deny this for a second, but you seem blissfully unaware of it. Any argument that our current lifestyle is beneficial to humanity must indeed include all of humanity for it to be true. Our current lifestyle does nothing of the sort in a manner unprecedented in history.

>>33

Everything exists in the mind of the observers. So if one person says it doesn't exist and nobody else sees it, then at least it exists somewhere even if it is in the mind of one person. You can't prove a negative so you're not speaking for science. Science is here to prove what exists, or what is observable by the concensus, not to prove what doesn't exist because they wouldn't be scientists, they would be nutjobs. Though don't think I'm siding with the nutjob christians or the other nutjob agnostic.

>>32

Again, that's life/Universe's fault that the work/reward concept consequently involves man being assholes to each other sometimes, but go tell the Universe to change it's root structure so we can get rid of that, will ya? I'm sure you could find a better option for it, right?

>>36 In general, we may chose theology or science or indeed many of the other modes of human reasoning

Theology is a "mode of human reasoning"? What? [citation needed]

And what are these mysterious other "modes of human reasoning"?

>>8
Militant atheism, which is what I actually said, asserts that there is for certain no god. Practitioners then go around parading this untestable hypothesis as a "fact" with distinctly religious fervour. That's what I find silly.

>>9
We're talking about unknowable metaphysical issues that there is no evidence base for. Of course, I have working assumptions and operate on the understanding that the world is real as far as I'm concerned, but it's a fact that we could e.g. be in a highly advanced computer simulation and there is no way we can test this. Because of that we shouldn't waste too much time thinking about such possibilities outside of SF, sure ... but discounting them out of hand isn't science.

Oh, and I never said I believed in the Judeo-Christian god or hell either. Not that you care, but personally I think if there is a "god" it will be impossible for us to comprehend by definition, and certainly nothing like any of the images currently worshipped.

>>36

You seem to have the selfish notion that humanity is above the other animals or plants on Earth and that man is precious and one of a kind or some bullshit. Or that the inherent selfishness for which man has to overcome that which is around him is wrong to have but it is the viewpoint for which he was inherited by the Universe or whatever means you call it which made him birth into consciousness. You seem arrogant enough to think that one must have a global view of things or else he's wrong. He must not know if there's a god or not, or else he's wrong and your view is the right one. Do you ever take a look at what you type out and read it?

>>35
I type without moving my lips or opening my mouth.

It's not my fault if people don't examine their own assumptions, nor like it very much when someone does it for them.

It cannot be demonstrated that one form of human labelling is inherently better than any other, that can only be determined by what is being discussed and what conclusions are being drawn, and I don't really see what the problem is with stating it.

It is as absurd for someone to say "science is best" as it is for someone to say "wicca is best", meaning "in all cases" as we've had implied here. The only reason we have come to adopt this acceptance of people who assert the former is that science makes a lot of money. If wiccan bullshit made as much profit as modern empirical science, then the opposite would hold.

>>35
That reminds me of the interview with Stoya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWgIEV52cQ

She is really hot as fuck, but having to talk to her? Wargll... more like a 12 yo in the body of pornstar.

>>39

> Militant atheism, which is what I actually said, asserts that there is for certain no god.

Gosh, you sure created & destroyed that strawman in a hurry. Good job! Those fictitious caricatures never knew what hit them!

> it will be impossible for us to comprehend by definition, and certainly nothing like any of the images currently worshipped

Interesting theory. What's the evidence for it? How do you propose testing it?

>>41

Yeah, it's probably a total coincidence that reasoned observation of the world yields so much more useful and practical results than adherence to an arbitrary set of superstitions. This is probably just random, and doesn't imply that reasoned observation of the world is somehow more valid or anything.

>>36

You seem to not like violence. Do any of us? But the simple fact of the matter is, violence or at least, discomfort will be encountered whether man is giving it to you or not. Do you know the natural balance for which the universe hangs? There is no such thing as not being discomforted at all, eg, no pain, no war, no battle with man, nature, life, etc. or no obstacles which you have to struggle to overcome. That's the zest of life. Without your competitors, would you even have a life? You discredit real life. Real life involves pain and agony and it's an obstacle to overcome so you can be challenged. Even at the base level in this universe, there is always some antagonist force, push/pull, etc and without the good, there is no bad. And again, I'm debating you, and without anyone to converse/debate with, shit would be pretty boring, right? If not, what would you do? Find another thing to do? A hobby? Perhaps playing the piano? Well, that's another obstacle which you will try to overcome. Go outside and talk to and make friends? Why, to challenge your social skills as well as soak up new information to use to your advantage when faced with other social opportunities? There's challenge in everything we do and some people try to act as if it's just totally bad and must be gotten rid of. It's the spice to life. War/competition/challenges......it's all a natural and healthy part of what got us here. We challenged nature as well as other species to be where we are today. We even challenged each other. You wouldn't disagree with your fore-fathers taking over the land you live on now and killing the indigenous peoples would you? You have to thank war for being who you are today. You are the son of war and love. You can't discredit either.

Since when are science and religion mutually exclusive? This is a thinly disguised formal fallacy and renders all your arguments invalid. Please try again.

>>43

> ... What's the evidence for it? ...

Obviously there is none and I can't. Hence the "personally I think" qualifier. That's about the most definitive statement anybody can make on issues like this.

>>44

lol, you hit the nail on the head.

>>44
Yet the same set of myths can explain your experience of something fundamnetal like, say, consciousness so much better than a list of brain chemicals and their interactions.

Science is very good at describing what is there, but not what it means to experience it.

>>38
Empirical Science is an off-shoot of Jesuit Theology. Rene Descartes kick-started the mode of enquiry as a more systematic way to examine certain repeatable physical phenomena in the context of a wider enquiry in mystery of God.

Theology isn't rote learning the bible, it's a form of philosophy that examines the idea of God, and what implications there may be in the event that there is one (or several) or not at all.

Other forms of enquiry: philosophy, visual art, music, narative fiction, mythology.

Almost all of human enquiry that involves language is an off-shoot of philosophy, itself arguably an off-shoot of theology. Proir to a standardised wrtten language we had visual art, story-telling and music for a hell of a lot longer.

To be honest, there are no real distinctions between modes of human enquiry per se as many overlap (imagine science or maths without visual representations... anathema) and all pretty much overlap. Modern compartmentalisation due to funding issues in academic institutions have helped foster the idea that there are some that are better than others, but this does not in fact make it so.

Did you guys just fart out a serious discussion on Wish?

>>50
Yeah, we generally wait for you to go on holiday, but what with WoW servers being down and 12chan packed up again, there didn't seem like anything else to do at 2.00am on a Thursday...

>>47

Of course, personally, you think. You can start by not making assumptions for which can't be proven. Science doesn't say that it can't be proven so it's false, it states it can't be proven so it is irrelevant to current working data.

What's with the militant Agnostics? They're so against Atheists but I, as an Atheist, don't say there's no god but that there's currently no sufficient proof for a god such as the Abrahamic one so it is irrelevant to my daily activities and can safely rule it out. Though as I said earlier, I think an intelligent universal entity seems plausible but then there's the 'who made that' entity question.

> Yet the same set of myths can explain your experience of something fundamnetal like, say, consciousness so much better than a list of brain chemicals and their interactions.

[citation needed]

>>53

>>49
MOAR (of girl, that is)

You are trying too hard to seperate things that are not even comparable. Science boils down to the very fact that it only deals with things which can be tested ('falsifiable'). This does clearly imply that it is not exclusive.

>>51

>WoW servers being down

>>53
The experience of consciousness is not a list of brain chemicals. That it may be described as such, and altered by adding some or removing some, says nothing about the experience of consciousness.

Mythology - and I'll include the Abrahamic religions in that term - describes the experience of human consciousness in a wide range of states, as does visual art, story-telling and, especially, music.

Some of the more weird myths are deliberately constructed to conufuse logic and break through to an emotional revelation when used in a specific setting or ritual.

That's not the only function of mythology, and not all mythology can be used this way (consider also that not all music, art or literature can be used this way either) but if you want to know "what does it mean?" as opposed to "what is it?", mythology is still a powerful method of inquiry.

>>55
I know, but the attitude "science is best" very much denies this fundamental aspect of empiricism doesn't it? That's the point I'm making.

"Science is best in areas where science is best applicable"

>>52
Well, this would seem to essentially be fighting over semantics then. I'd characterise your position as 'weak' atheism - you don't believe any god exists, but you "don't say there's no god". This is basically identical to my position, but I find it easier to label it agnosticism because most people think atheism = strong atheism = explicit denial.

In conclusion, LOL DONGS

>>58

>"Science is best in areas where science is best applicable"

If you scrutinize something with scientific methods and there is an outcome there is no alternative by definition.

I see there are ares where this clashes with religious views. Currently, the most prominent one is probably the creationism vs. evolution debate. I don't quite get the point of it, because evolution does not rule out genesis, it just shifts it to a much earlier date.

Why do we need religion as an alternative? Why can't it just serve as a vehicle to explain the things we don't understand?

>>57

Yes, it says something about the experience. You're just so wrapped up in philosophy and the unknown that you don't know what's what anymore. There's no reason to think the mind can't be emulated, even if it is a simple mind of something such as a worm. A computer could perhaps be wired to let you see as though the worm would see, give you input which it may experience in one form or another.

You're basically telling us that things can't be interpreted. Language is a form of interpretation as well as math. They all take constructs and interpret them into something we can easily process. Science does the same thing. Feelings, sights, etc can be interpreted to other means of perception. There is nothing magical about this "way of experiencing" or whatever bullshit you call it. Maybe I could even get high and experience it, just like you.

>>62
Well, that's another whole tl;dr thread right there. I'd say the short version is that political blocs based on support from poor, ignorant fundies are engaged in a "War on Reason". If Joe Redneck can get his personal beliefs elevated to national policy in place of scientific reasoning, that's a win for him and, as far as he's concerned, puts his intellectual superiors in their place.

IIRC there were some leaked docs from a pressure group that actually outlined this strategy. Creationism is just a wedge issue, the real goal is to create an equivalence between scientific fact and what people happen to believe based on a 2,000 year old allegorical book collection of uncertain provenance.

Also: Science

<--- http://www.mediafire.com/?nbkydh57zi2

>>62

>If you scrutinize something with scientific methods and there is an outcome there is no alternative by definition

??? what? No. The exact opposite is true, no conclusion is final in science. That's it showing its philosophical roots.

Where the Abrahamic relgions have fallen foul is when their leaders have insisted that they know best in areas of conflicting progress, clearly bullshit, and they have tarnished theology as a result. But this doesn't inherently imply that theology is flawed, any more than scientists who dogmatically spew "sceince is best".

Science doesn't state "what we understand" by any stretch of meaning. It does state "we can understand such and such like this", and in many cases it is amazing, revelatory and extremely satisfying. However, there is a horrible flaw in empirical science in that in oreder for it to "work" it must assume some very broad assumptions, the main one being "what we have observed before necessarily must occur again", and this cannot in fact be proven to (a) actually occur (b) actually be a necessary part of experience.

Also, it broaches it's conclusions in entirely impersonal terms as a neccessity, yet our experience of the reality being described may differ wildly, and it is in this area that it's usefulness wanes as a method of inquiry.

>>63
Look again. Scientfic enquiry excludes metaphysics, hence it's new name.

>There's no reason to think the mind can't be emulated, even if it is a simple mind of something such as a worm. A computer could perhaps be wired to let you see as though the worm would see, give you input which it may experience in one form or another.

Pure speculation, as irrrelevant as a christian saying "God will reveal the answer in time" to anything they find difficult to address. It is not inevitable that "science will find the answer", and to postulate this is intellectually dishonest.

>You're basically telling us that things can't be interpreted.

No, I saying that interpetation is entirely dependent on situation, i.e. what sort of conclusion we will find acceptable to a discussion. Like what I've typed over and over in this thread.

So if the question "why am I so depressed?" can be answered by a list of brain chemicals and their interactions to the satisfaction of the person asking the question, then yeah, science has provided the answer. But frankly that's just not going to address the question for a lot of people in the same way that a particular piece of music does, for instance. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

Experience of life is not a list of communicative labels, it is experience. That's not a difficult or mystic concept, you experience your own life more than you do anything else. Empirical science is not very good at describing it, that's all, and so for legitimate questions about experience, it's not the best tool of inquiry, and is in fact inferior to theology in this instance.

This doesn't make the creationists correct by the same measure: they are applying a similar dogmatic misinterpretation to religion in an area where religion is an unsuitable method of enquiry. They are tits, they will not examine the virtues of other methods of human enquiry in this instance and insist that their's is best because it works best elsewhere.

If you can see that they are wrong, fundamentally wrong, it can only be by choice that you are not applying the same line of reasoning to "science is best" dogma.

>>66

>??? what? No. The exact opposite is true, no conclusion is final in science. That's it showing its philosophical roots.

My statement may have been a bit too generic. One concept in the philosophy of science is that scientific hypothesis have to be falsifiable - you have to be able disprove them. Of course there may be different scientific hypotheses for the same problem, but the concept rejects anything that is not testable.

>>66
Thanks!

>>67
Yes, as it is with other methods of inquiry such as theology. Where do you think the idea came from?

The dominant institution of our time is not religon or science, it is the corporation, a legal and financial construct designed to generate fast financial return for investors. The "religion vs science debate" is a by-product of this dominance, and says more about the self-interest of the churches and science faculties that engage in the uneddifying, intellectually dishonest spectacle than anything else.

>>25

543tab3tab3tab3tab3tab543tab3tab3tab3tab54

tl;dr: shit thread.

>>69

Well go tell that to life because that's just the way it is. The truth as we see it will almost always be skewed towards life, or the means to keep it going, such as profit. Try telling people that the Earth has limited resources and that if we don't start to control the population soon, it may get out of hand and we'll get low on resources.

Most people don't want to hear it. If it's taking a whack at what might seem like keeping life or progress at bay, some would just rather ignore it. I can certainly understand that viewpoint and the philosophical to some degree but if you try to debate with philosophy, it very rarely wins because it holds less ground to common logic.

>>45
I skipped this because it was besides the point last night, but it does raise interesting points.

I would agree that modern civilisation is inherently violent and paradoxically anti-social.

Prior to 3000BC humans did not create strategic reserves of food, we were essentially nomadic seasonal gathers. The were no wars because there were no large collections of people and resources weren't owned by any one. We had no slavery, because to maintain slaves at any fitnesss level suitable for food collection was counter-productive. Inter-group fighting was symbollic and usually bloodless, the cost of engaging in violence were counter-productive.

This period is reflected in myth by polythesism, animal gods, female fertility figures, and the sense that the gods were not actually on our side very much. These are symbollically reminders that humans have a place in nature and that nature is a fucking hard slog.

Then at around 3000BC we start a new set of myths. We have male gods who enter in contracts with humans, and stories of transformation and construction, reflected in the building of the first cities and the adoption of sedentary argiculture, and the onset of invention. the myths indicate that the female godesses had been subdued and conquerored by their sons, reflecting that nature was no longer boss.

It then became clear that in order to maintain a working food supply, resources would have to be controlled, and that's when we invented war, slavery and the concept of ownership of our environment.

If you consider how very important that last part is to us here in 2008, and then consider that actually it is bullshit, we really don't own anything on the planet, then you kind of wake up a bit to the absurd cruelties of everyday life.

So yeah, modern life is violent, but it wasn't that way for a quarter of a million years of human experience on Earth, and the benefits it brings are at the expense of someone else. Now, I don't actually have a problem with this. I also know that these things happen in cycles, and that unassailable power structures crumble and fall in the blink of history's eye.

I do find it interesting when people somehow overlook the predatory nature of consumer society. That level of compartmentalisation in otherwise intelligent people is fascinating, and a subject well worth investigating in it's own right.

>>71
Our resources are not limited, life is not profit, our population is not out of control in a fundamental sense of the word.

Global population is now too big to maintain our global economic superiority i.e. 20% leeching off the remaining 80%. This says nothing about humanity as a whole.

>>73

Ok, so we have unlimited food and somehow the Earth extends infinitely into outer space? I'm not saying it's out of control, I'm saying it could be if we keep populating.

>>73 20% leeching off the remaining 80%

I think you have those numbers reversed.

>>72

Try thinking some time, it really helps when using logic. All this crap you speak about humans inventing ownership of land, aka, defending their territory, does that not remind you of what animals do? War wasn't invented either. Animals do it all the time over resources.

Also you say science is driven by profit, aka, "what can this give me if I do it or discover it". We all do things for a reward. You included. Even your twisted philosophies of how you think life is and how others should see it. So why did you keep on learning. Why do you read about other sources of discovery, other philosophy? Because you get something from it. We all do things because we get something from it. Big surprise. I think everyone here knows it but you. Life is profit driven. Whether that profit be financial, educational, etc. Individual life is all about what the individual can get. We're all selfish in some aspects but there's just some who can't see that or refuse to admit it.

>>74
That's only true due to the dominant economic model. In terms of "what's here" as it were, that is to say "resources available", the planet is capable of sustaining a human population hundreds of times larger than this without human techonolgy. Now throw in technology and the number of sustainable lives is truly gargantuan. This won't happen of course, we don't value human life enough, we prefer our economic model, and why not when it produces such advantages to us who are in control?

>>75
No, have a look at the numbers. Use a calculator if you need to.

>>76
Try thinking some time, it really helps when using logic. All this crap you speak about humans inventing ownership of land, aka, defending their territory, does that not remind you of what animals do? War wasn't invented either. Animals do it all the time over resources.

No, animals do not kill over territory as a matter of regular course, as you'd know if you'd bothered to look this up, but don't let over 500 years worth of published study of animal behaviour get in the way of a baseless opinion.

Nor do they own their territory: animals do not seek to dominate access to a shared resource, even a resource vital to their own survival.

Animals compete over mating rites, and this is specifically intra-special. Where food is scarse you find that animals become nomadic, and only when movement is restricted do you encountered highly localised acts of violence, yet even then none of which are designed to actually kill over the act of intimidation. Certain species actively kill and consume their young under such unusual and extreme conditions, but this is not analogous to human warfare.

Honestly, there is so much literature on the behaviour of animals that contradict the non-argument you are promoting here as to be embarassing.

> Individual life is all about what the individual can get. We're all selfish in some aspects but there's just some who can't see that or refuse to admit it.

Now, what you've done here is to assume that people are the same as you.

I think this thread rather demonstrates that this isn't so.

And if a clumsy thread on Wish can demonstrate something is false, then the basic premise is beyond redemption.