If it takes 2 Fox whores to frie her, she can’t be all bad.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Hearing voices is emperical data in regards to psychosis? The psychosis may be emperical data but not the voice. What does that have to do with a belief in design? It parallels the belief that everything that happens on this planet is the result of organized chaos. Do you have emperical proof that there is no design?
I do not know how design comes into this, but if you argue that an apparent design needs a designer, you are
A) officialy a Deist and, if you also believe we can understand this design using reason, probably a de-facto freemason and
B) it does only take the problem one step further, because you have no empirical evidence that there is a “design”, so there may be or not be a need for a designer, as much as there may or may not be a God…
I am failing to see what your issue is with my beliefs or why you see them as inferior to you or your “non-belief”. All that we feel, see and respond to isn’t just based on “emperical evidence”. Emperical evidence shows there isn’t much difference between our response to chocolate and our response to “love”. Where is the emperical evidence that “love” exists?[/quote]
We, as humans, ar influenced by things we cannot see… Ideas, emotions, etc…
Ok.
How does that lead to the existence of Deity?
If you answer because it changes peoples life the answer is no, the belief in a Deity changes peoples lifes,
Frankly, what you call Christianity is probably more spirituality with Jesus as a major cornerstone and a belief in a Deity as an architect of the universe.
Maybe you like Kant`s reason better, because of “the moral universe within him” there must be a God.
And you know my real issue:
The hypocrisy and intellectual laziness of so called moderates make it almost impossible to fight her ideas, because I cannot attack the monstrous irrationality of her ideas foundation without simultaneously attacking yours.
While she may only be a bit deranged Muslim religious violence is a serious problem and your government cannot even name the real problem without pissing off 80% of the US population.
[quote]orion wrote:
We, as humans, ar influenced by things we cannot see… Ideas, emotions, etc…
Ok.[/quote]
Well, which is it. Either emperical evidence is all that is needed to form a picture of things that influence us…or we are influenced by things that emperical evidence would have a very hard time pin pointing. If the latter is true, how can anyone like yourself honestly claim there is absolutely without a doubt no higher power in the universe aside from us?
[quote]
How does that lead to the existence of Deity?[/quote]
I thought you were the one in the process of proving things. How does it prove there isn’t one?
[quote]
If you answer because it changes peoples life the answer is no, the belief in a Deity changes peoples lifes,[/quote]
Why would I write that the deity changes lives? My stance has been the existance of a choice.
[quote]
Frankly, what you call Christianity is probably more spirituality with Jesus as a major cornerstone and a belief in a Deity as an architect of the universe.[/quote]
Your point?
[quote]
Maybe you like Kant`s reason better, because of “the moral universe within him” there must be a God.
And you know my real issue:
The hypocrisy and intellectual laziness of so called moderates make it almost impossible to fight her ideas, because I cannot attack the monstrous irrationality of her ideas foundation without simultaneously attacking yours.
While she may only be a bit deranged Muslim religious violence is a serious problem and your government cannot even name the real problem without pissing off 80% of the US population. [/quote]
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away.
[quote]orion wrote:
karva wrote:
orion wrote:
karva wrote:
orion wrote:
karva wrote:
orion wrote:
karva wrote:
Normal people don’t think of life in bipolar terms. But you are right, you are closer to this woman than us moderates.
Straight to the ad-hominem attacks…
You must have killer-arguments!
Wasn’t you applauding insult just a little while ago?
Clever!
But what was he insulting and what was insulted by you?
It wasn’t an insult what he wrote, it was an opinion. Well written and exaggerated to underline the point. I wasn’t insulting him either. I agreed that he, or the viewpoint he argued for, was closer to this womans mindset than that of moderate people, whom he wished to die.
Closer to that womans ideas as in intellectually consistent?
Anything can be intellectually consistent if you accept the premises. Do you really believe, that religiosity is first and foremost an intellectual thingy? I know, that many ardent believers want to argue so, but do you buy their claims? Do you think that atheism is first and foremost an intellectual thingy?
I am convinced that Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/) is right when he argues that our respect for the religious feelings of other people make it very hard, if not impossible, to deal with problems like muslim terrorism…
It is never Islam, oh no, it is Islamofascism, fundamental Islam, muslim extremism…
The idea that religion could be the problem is rarely discussed, because we all know that religion is automatically a good thing.
You can see it on this board how even a little religion can poison the mind:
Even though she is probably closer to the text, closer to the spirit of the OT and absolutely consistent in her ideas, people think that she is not a true Christian, because true Christianity is something that must be felt somehow, but when they use the bible to argue their point it suddenly becomes the WORD OF THE LORD again.
Those people are hypocrits, a suicide bomber is a true believer…
He believes there is a God, he believes that to die in a Djihad is holy, therefore he blows himself up…
I know that religions is allmost pure emotion and no reason (though I never had an atheist feeling) but as long as religious people don`t, the violent insane people can hide among the mildly insane people.
[/quote]
You are an utopian, then. You clearly have a vision of a better world without religion. Is that based on fact?
[quote]karva wrote:
You are an utopian, then. You clearly have a vision of a better world without religion. Is that based on fact? [/quote]
Not really an utopian, Prof X is right they`d simply find another way of killing themselves…
I do think however that the way moderates see fundamentalists is an excellent way of studying the power of indoctrination/stupidity in all its glory.
…well, I believe in giant pink Hyppothamusses, she believes in an angry giant pink Hyppothamus that hates homosexuals, that woman is CRAZY!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away. [/quote]
And you think that a form of belief system that has no empirical foundation, clearly divides people and has a built-in lack of tolerance is exactly what a doctor would prescribe such a species?
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away.
And you think that a form of belief system that has no empirical foundation, clearly divides people and has a built-in lack of tolerance is exactly what a doctor would prescribe such a species?[/quote]
If people truly understood what the bible is speaking of, they wouldn’t be teaching a lack of tolerance. Humans spread hatred. Maybe it is simply in us to be divisive. Jesus used to commune with the outcasts of society. He didn’t spit on them or cast them away.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You honestly walk around thinking that anyone who believes in God is insane? [/quote]
I sure as shit do. Moreover, I’m absolutely convinced that 98% of the world’s population fits into this category. I see the proof each and every day. I see it every time I read a sentence written by a believer. It’s not at all difficult to determine how people think, their philosophical basis, if you pay careful attention to the way they express themselves and draw conclusions about the world.
The vast majority of the population holds a metaphysical basis that is grounded in some form of platonic objectivity. In simple terms, they believe that “truth” exists independant of their ability to verify it. This mentality is as widespread among scientists and intellectuals as it is among the general population. It contradicts the fundamental tenets of empiricism. I am a strict empiricist.
[quote]Applesauce wrote:
Perhaps I should have clarified some. I know there are a few scattered incidents, like abortion clinic bombings and such, but not on the scale of Islamic extremists that we hear about on the news every week. In other words, they’re not blowing themselves up in crowded places every week to get their point across.[/quote]
Yeah? And they haven’t been oppressed by foreign powers for half a century. Fair is fair. Gotta look at the entire picture. Suicide bombing is part religion, part politics.
[quote]orion wrote:
What would you think of a doctor that treats his patients based on his believes that are backed with nothing?
[/quote]
A bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out that such “doctors” actually exist today. They call themselves psychologists. Their practices can be equated to the witch hunts of earlier times.
[quote]orion wrote:
Acupuncture works do some degree and yet we don`t know why, only that the traditional Chinese explanation for the why is BS.
[/quote]
a complete lack of reason and empirical evidence strikes again.
you first say that modern science has no explantion for why acupuncture works, and then in the same breath (without empirical evidence, mind you) state that the chinese explanation is bs.
you lose this round.
[quote]rawda wrote:
a complete lack of reason and empirical evidence strikes again.
you first say that modern science has no explantion for why acupuncture works, and then in the same breath (without empirical evidence, mind you) state that the chinese explanation is bs.
[/quote]
I’ll get this one.
The reason that the chinese mystic explanation is BS is because it is reliant upon the existence of Qi channels which correspond roughly with certain body structures, i.e., arteries, nerves, organs, etc. Modern science has shown empirically that these Qi channels aren’t there in the way that the Chinese believed thousands of years ago, going back to the earliest precepts of chinese medieval medicine, the Yellow Emperor, etc. Big surprise.
More scientific experimentation has shown that martial Qi which we use in gungfu or Taijiquan is also a false premise, despite hundreds of years of being passed down by masters of martial arts to their students. It’s been debunked. You can’t get magic powers from learning gungfu, I’m sorry.
What IS real and empirically shown is that the placebo effect can be activated by acupuncture. Even bad or faulty acupuncture. What matters is that the person receiving it thinks its going to work.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/532010
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/2_1Katpchuk.html
Please note that the study in the last link involved shoving metal tubes up patient’s butts. WTF???
This is why I do not participate in scientific studies, folks. 
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
rawda wrote:
a complete lack of reason and empirical evidence strikes again.
you first say that modern science has no explantion for why acupuncture works, and then in the same breath (without empirical evidence, mind you) state that the chinese explanation is bs.
I’ll get this one.
The reason that the chinese mystic explanation is BS is because it is reliant upon the existence of Qi channels which correspond roughly with certain body structures, i.e., arteries, nerves, organs, etc. Modern science has shown empirically that these Qi channels aren’t there in the way that the Chinese believed thousands of years ago, going back to the earliest precepts of chinese medieval medicine, the Yellow Emperor, etc. Big surprise.
More scientific experimentation has shown that martial Qi which we use in gungfu or Taijiquan is also a false premise, despite hundreds of years of being passed down by masters of martial arts to their students. It’s been debunked. You can’t get magic powers from learning gungfu, I’m sorry.
What IS real and empirically shown is that the placebo effect can be activated by acupuncture. Even bad or faulty acupuncture. What matters is that the person receiving it thinks its going to work.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/532010
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/2_1Katpchuk.html
Please note that the study in the last link involved shoving metal tubes up patient’s butts. WTF???
This is why I do not participate in scientific studies, folks. :)[/quote]
The part of that I am surprised even you missed, is how apparently strong that placebo effect may be and has been for centuries. There seems to be a lot we can accomplish if we simply believe we can.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You honestly walk around thinking that anyone who believes in God is insane?
I sure as shit do. Moreover, I’m absolutely convinced that 98% of the world’s population fits into this category. I see the proof each and every day. I see it every time I read a sentence written by a believer. It’s not at all difficult to determine how people think, their philosophical basis, if you pay careful attention to the way they express themselves and draw conclusions about the world.
The vast majority of the population holds a metaphysical basis that is grounded in some form of platonic objectivity. In simple terms, they believe that “truth” exists independant of their ability to verify it. This mentality is as widespread among scientists and intellectuals as it is among the general population. It contradicts the fundamental tenets of empiricism. I am a strict empiricist.[/quote]
Wow. Do you want a cookie? So being an “empiricist” makes you the one sane person among millions? On the drive to work, do you have to find alternate routes due to your ego being too large to fit under low bridges and freeways? I am so…not impressed with what you just wrote. Congrats for being able to type it by yourself though.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/532010
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/2_1Katpchuk.html
[/quote]
Also, thanks for the links. I will go through them later today. If you have more on the subject, post those as well.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away.
And you think that a form of belief system that has no empirical foundation, clearly divides people and has a built-in lack of tolerance is exactly what a doctor would prescribe such a species?
If people truly understood what the bible is speaking of, they wouldn’t be teaching a lack of tolerance. Humans spread hatred. Maybe it is simply in us to be divisive. Jesus used to commune with the outcasts of society. He didn’t spit on them or cast them away.[/quote]
If people truly understood what the OT is telling us, is that Jahwe is a God of genocide…
Is someone following Christs teachings, while seriously doubting that he is the son of God a Christian?
Would it change something if he believed in an universal builder, without necessarily connecting those two?
[quote]rawda wrote:
orion wrote:
Acupuncture works do some degree and yet we don`t know why, only that the traditional Chinese explanation for the why is BS.
a complete lack of reason and empirical evidence strikes again.
you first say that modern science has no explantion for why acupuncture works, and then in the same breath (without empirical evidence, mind you) state that the chinese explanation is bs.
you lose this round.[/quote]
No, because if the Chinese explanation would have been correct it would have mattered where you put the needles.
They train for years to hit the exact rigt point.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
A bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out that such “doctors” actually exist today. They call themselves psychologists. Their practices can be equated to the witch hunts of earlier times.[/quote]
Hey there is an empirical wing of psychology, they are called behaviourists.
Then, Freud did not exactly make that much shit up, he merely noticed that some themes come around again and again and again because they seem to be an important part of what it means being human.
Plus, evolutionary psychology even tries to explain human behaviour on the grounds of a metapsychological theory that seems to work for all other aspects of biology.
Psychology, as a science, is only 100 years old, give it time…
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away.
And you think that a form of belief system that has no empirical foundation, clearly divides people and has a built-in lack of tolerance is exactly what a doctor would prescribe such a species?
If people truly understood what the bible is speaking of, they wouldn’t be teaching a lack of tolerance. Humans spread hatred. Maybe it is simply in us to be divisive. Jesus used to commune with the outcasts of society. He didn’t spit on them or cast them away.
If people truly understood what the OT is telling us, is that Jahwe is a God of genocide…
Is someone following Christs teachings, while seriously doubting that he is the son of God a Christian?
Would it change something if he believed in an universal builder, without necessarily connecting those two?[/quote]
Someone doubting whether Christ is Christ would obviously not be a Christian. Isn’t that painfully obvious? A God of genocide? How about you get real specific.
[quote]orion wrote:
rawda wrote:
orion wrote:
Acupuncture works do some degree and yet we don`t know why, only that the traditional Chinese explanation for the why is BS.
a complete lack of reason and empirical evidence strikes again.
you first say that modern science has no explantion for why acupuncture works, and then in the same breath (without empirical evidence, mind you) state that the chinese explanation is bs.
you lose this round.
No, because if the Chinese explanation would have been correct it would have mattered where you put the needles.
They train for years to hit the exact rigt point. [/quote]
And no one has shown just yet that it doesn’t matter at all. The only link that was posted that I didn’t get to research was the top one. The others had nothing to do with this specifically and proved the power of mind over matter more than anything.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
In simple terms, they believe that “truth” exists independant of their ability to verify it. This mentality is as widespread among scientists and intellectuals as it is among the general population. It contradicts the fundamental tenets of empiricism. I am a strict empiricist.
[/quote]
Truth must exist “independent of (our) ability to verify it.” Otherwise, we could not “verify” it.
You sound less like a “strict empiricist” and more like a “logical positivist.” Logical Positivism is an impoverished worldview, which leads to the abandonment of ethical principles as being non-meaningful, and relativism.
In fact, it’s interesting that you view people who don’t share your view as “insane.” After all, Logical Positivism is an extreme position; rather than asserting, as might a scientist (or more generally, an empiricist) that empirical knowledge has its own domain, or even that scientific knowledge is privileged in some sense, logical positivism seeks to deny any meaning to questions that fall outside of science’s purview.
Sorry, but I really do think that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were smarter than you. And they all felt that ethics and the best human life were knowable from human nature.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I think the entire population knows what the real problem is. Religion itself isn’t the real problem. Humans would find some reason to hate each other no matter how many aspects of culture you trimmed away.
And you think that a form of belief system that has no empirical foundation, clearly divides people and has a built-in lack of tolerance is exactly what a doctor would prescribe such a species?
If people truly understood what the bible is speaking of, they wouldn’t be teaching a lack of tolerance. Humans spread hatred. Maybe it is simply in us to be divisive. Jesus used to commune with the outcasts of society. He didn’t spit on them or cast them away.
If people truly understood what the OT is telling us, is that Jahwe is a God of genocide…
Is someone following Christs teachings, while seriously doubting that he is the son of God a Christian?
Would it change something if he believed in an universal builder, without necessarily connecting those two?
Someone doubting whether Christ is Christ would obviously not be a Christian. Isn’t that painfully obvious? A God of genocide? How about you get real specific.[/quote]
Well there were the Amakelites and the Aradites and the Amorites and the Bashanites and the Hittites and the Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites…
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/instructions_for_genocide/dt07_02.html