Logic

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Scientists ignore God because he is counterproductive.

Back in medieval times, who thought the sun was a big ball of gas, and the moon just a big hunk of rock? No one knew what they really were, so they just attributed to be more of God's 'miracles.'

The scientific world could attribute things they can't yet explain (like the beginning of the universe, or black holes, or quantum mechanics) to God, but that would just be lazy. So the only thing they assume to be absolutely true is that they don't know anything. If only more people thought like that, the world would be an altogether better place.

You are living in Medieval times, my friend. In fact what you see is the dark ages of Religion and Science, a time when neither knows much of anything. Again, because you are a Zero you have a need to pretend you are somebody who is advanced.

Um, thanks? And I assume you know you are advanced so you don't need to pretend anything? Stop being such a sanctimonious asshole.

Well of course not, silly. I don't need to pretend anything because all my pretenses died when I realized I'm nothing, that all the garbage dumped in me accumulated over centuries, was a joke. That's why I don't need them anymore. I have learned, of course, that to the pretentious there is no bigger asshole the he who does not pretend. It's how you become a mirror. Everybody sees their own joke in me. Everybody hates he who has let go. It's a psychological fact that that is how we are. You will either see that you are the asshole or you won't. It makes not the slightest difference to me.

 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Scientists ignore God because he is counterproductive.

Back in medieval times, who thought the sun was a big ball of gas, and the moon just a big hunk of rock? No one knew what they really were, so they just attributed to be more of God's 'miracles.'

The scientific world could attribute things they can't yet explain (like the beginning of the universe, or black holes, or quantum mechanics) to God, but that would just be lazy. So the only thing they assume to be absolutely true is that they don't know anything. If only more people thought like that, the world would be an altogether better place.

You are living in Medieval times, my friend. In fact what you see is the dark ages of Religion and Science, a time when neither knows much of anything. Again, because you are a Zero you have a need to pretend you are somebody who is advanced.

Um, thanks? And I assume you know you are advanced so you don't need to pretend anything? Stop being such a sanctimonious asshole.

Well of course not, silly. I don't need to pretend anything because all my pretenses died when I realized I'm nothing, that all the garbage dumped in me accumulated over centuries, was a joke. That's why I don't need them anymore. I have learned, of course, that to the pretentious there is no bigger asshole the he who does not pretend. It's how you become a mirror. Everybody sees their own joke in me. Everybody hates he who has let go. It's a psychological fact that that is how we are. You will either see that you are the asshole or you won't. It makes not the slightest difference to me.

As much as you enjoy the sound of your own speech and your intro to psychology bullshit, it really doesn't mean anything, and is utterly useless.

I could say "oh yeah, I know nothing, silly me, let's stop everything and revel in the fact that we know nothing, so there is no point in discussing topics because after all we don't know anything about them", but then I'd be a jaded Psych major who just realized his degree is meaningless and he provides no worth to the world around him, except for hoping others will lap up his bullshit so he can feel important.

I think I'll just choose to believe that we know *something* but we can never know *everything*. That way I won't just be spouting off silly little quotes from a scientist who one day decided to be philosophical.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
God causes men who know him to tell others about him. What they tell to those who don't know God applies to the told only as individuals in their own time.

What people hear when they are told of God has nothing at all to do with God.

Religions are the detritus of teaching schools where once a light shown. Only the Knower is free from the Devil of mechanically called sleep.

The God you believe in or doubt isn't God. God is known to the awake and not to folks who just think they are.

To know God is to not know God for as Meister EcKhart said, "The eye with I see God is the same eye with which he sees me."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

It doesn't matter what you call it. Your beliefs about what it is are what make it impossible to experience. It doesn't matter if you say it does not exist. It does not, for you at any rate, so you are not only right if you don't believe, you non-belief insured it does not.

Religion is utter garbage. Non-belief is utter garbage. Garbage collectors like to argue whose garbage stinks the most. What does it matter when it's all garbage. We have all been stuffed full of crap. We know absolutely nothing at all. Do you really wonder why you are all ego? Without your ego you would be who you are.

Wow. Speaking of stuffed full of crap. Definitely seems like someone has been enthusiastically taking notes in Psych 101.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
A: As much as you enjoy the sound of your own speech and your intro to psychology bullshit, it really doesn't mean anything, and is utterly useless.

Uranium, of course is useless to a cave man so your point here is moot.

A: I could say "oh yeah, I know nothing, silly me, let's stop everything and revel in the fact that we know nothing, so there is no point in discussing topics because after all we don't know anything about them", but then I'd be a jaded Psych major who just realized his degree is meaningless and he provides no worth to the world around him, except for hoping others will lap up his bullshit so he can feel important.

M: Hehe, when you know nothing you shouldn't strive for implications. The implications of foolish assumptions can be tragic. First deal with the fact that you know nothing and then you will know where it leads and should lead. Your psych stuff is just a regurgitation of put-downs you've been taught and think will carry some punch. You can't punch a nothing like me. I haven't even ever studied psychology, sorry. Psychologists know nothing too.

A: I think I'll just choose to believe that we know *something* but we can never know *everything*. That way I won't just be spouting off silly little quotes from a scientist who one day decided to be philosophical.

M: No your big fat ego will convince you that the nothing you think you know is everything as it has already numerous times even in this post I am replying to. You will completely discount the fact of what you don't know and stuff yourself full of opinions. Then you will go out in the world and spread the disease to others till the wars do you all in. Humanity is sick with a disease that is fatal, but hey, "I an entitled to my opinions." Never mind that your path leads to the end of human life. We are dying because we are clowns.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
Aren't you being dogmatic? How are you different than the religions you criticize when you say they place things off limits and turn around and say that it's not intellectually honest science of you believe in God. Science doesn't care if there is a God or not. And long before you acquired your vaunted intellectual honesty you knew in your heart there is God, no? What you did was create the presumption there is not.

Oh, and I didn't notice this until now. Your logic here is really bad. The entire basis of science is to go around proving or disproving a positive. Not a negative. Failure to prove the negative is a classic logical fallacy that you are attempting to employ here. Just because god has not been disproven does not mean that he exists.

You have failed to grasp the reason why god has no place in science is because there is no reasonable proof he exists, not due to some dogmatic conflict. In the case of science god is subject to the same rules as everything else. For the same reason, scientists do not include the whims of the flying spaghetti monster in their calculations.

If there is ever empirical evidence to suggest the existence and influence of god (or spaghetti monsters) on areas being studied by scientists... then they should definitely take it into account... as that would be the intellectually honest thing to do. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
I think everyone is tired of your postmodern Nietzsche nihilism crap moonbeam, it's usually the preferred vehicle of disgruntled high school kids. We know everything you think you know is crap, everyone is crap, liberate yourself. blah blah blah.

You are trying to imply that nobody should speak without absolute knowledge. That is stupid.

I really don't care what people believe, and I know better then to try and convince anyone to change their beliefs, but really what you are saying here is devoid of any intellectual merit.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Enig101
This argument is somewhat irrelevant without actual "statistics". I would say that the majority of religious people are probably less concerned with a precise literal interpretation of ancient texts, which allows them to accept both science and religion as valid. It is unfortunate that those who are less flexible have such a momentum in the US though (see Fundamentalist Christians).
It's not irrelevant. He claimed that religious people oppose science, which is false. It's what's called a hasty generalization, one of ATP&N's favorite fallacies.
I really do not understand what 'atheistic' and 'deistic' science actually is. However, bias is generally negated by the scientific method and peer review, I would think.
This just tells me that you haven't had the misfortune of competing in today's peer review process. Bias abounds and stifles a lot of good work. I'm not sure that this is avoidable, unfortunately, and the peer review process is still perhaps the best method to achieve good science, but I don't think it's safe to say that it gives results that are free from bias.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think everyone is tired of your postmodern Nietzsche nihilism crap moonbeam, it's usually the preferred vehicle of disgruntled high school kids. We know everything you think you know is crap, everyone is crap, liberate yourself. blah blah blah.

Please read Moonbeam's siggy
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think everyone is tired of your postmodern Nietzsche nihilism crap moonbeam, it's usually the preferred vehicle of disgruntled high school kids. We know everything you think you know is crap, everyone is crap, liberate yourself. blah blah blah.

You are trying to imply that nobody should speak without absolute knowledge. That is stupid.

I really don't care what people believe, and I know better then to try and convince anyone to change their beliefs, but really what you are saying here is devoid of any intellectual merit.

Please, since what you don't understand has to be reduced in your ignorance to high school mentality is only a demonstration that that is your preferred level. And Nietzsche didn't know anything either. You like, Aisengard think you know the alternatives to your ignorance that knowing nothing must imply silence and you need to know everything to speak. You know nothing but are doing a great job of showing it by speaking, no? What you with your big fat ego fails to see is that knowing nothing leads to genuine modesty. It is the innocence of mind required to see that which is hidden to egotistical fools who are blinded by their egotistical needs to deny they know nothing. As long as you worship the stuffed goose that your ego is, you will continue to know nothing and the door to knowledge, the lack of egotistical assumption, will be barred to you. You are presumptuous and that makes you blind.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Enig101
I really do not understand what 'atheistic' and 'deistic' science actually is. However, bias is generally negated by the scientific method and peer review, I would think.
This just tells me that you haven't had the misfortune of competing in today's peer review process. Bias abounds and stifles a lot of good work. I'm not sure that this is avoidable, unfortunately, and the peer review process is still perhaps the best method to achieve good science, but I don't think it's safe to say that it gives results that are free from bias.

OT: Its startling how many biologists fail to comprehend relatively simple concepts such as correlation does not imply causation.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Enig101
This argument is somewhat irrelevant without actual "statistics". I would say that the majority of religious people are probably less concerned with a precise literal interpretation of ancient texts, which allows them to accept both science and religion as valid. It is unfortunate that those who are less flexible have such a momentum in the US though (see Fundamentalist Christians).
It's not irrelevant. He claimed that religious people oppose science, which is false. It's what's called a hasty generalization, one of ATP&N's favorite fallacies.
I really do not understand what 'atheistic' and 'deistic' science actually is. However, bias is generally negated by the scientific method and peer review, I would think.
This just tells me that you haven't had the misfortune of competing in today's peer review process. Bias abounds and stifles a lot of good work. I'm not sure that this is avoidable, unfortunately, and the peer review process is still perhaps the best method to achieve good science, but I don't think it's safe to say that it gives results that are free from bias.

To be free of bias is to be free of the need to be right. To be free of the need to be right is to be free of feeling worthless because you fear being wrong. To be scientific and religious is self love, a love of self so strong it creates empathy for ALL, the universe and all living things. Ego is nothing but hidden self hate. It's what dies on the cross to be reborn.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Aren't you being dogmatic? How are you different than the religions you criticize when you say they place things off limits and turn around and say that it's not intellectually honest science of you believe in God. Science doesn't care if there is a God or not. And long before you acquired your vaunted intellectual honesty you knew in your heart there is God, no? What you did was create the presumption there is not.

Oh, and I didn't notice this until now. Your logic here is really bad. The entire basis of science is to go around proving or disproving a positive. Not a negative. Failure to prove the negative is a classic logical fallacy that you are attempting to employ here. Just because god has not been disproven does not mean that he exists.

You have failed to grasp the reason why god has no place in science is because there is no reasonable proof he exists, not due to some dogmatic conflict. In the case of science god is subject to the same rules as everything else. For the same reason, scientists do not include the whims of the flying spaghetti monster in their calculations.

If there is ever empirical evidence to suggest the existence and influence of god (or spaghetti monsters) on areas being studied by scientists... then they should definitely take it into account... as that would be the intellectually honest thing to do. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

In God you have your breath and being, but you say God does not exist. You are the one who is upside down. The God you don't believe in does not exist. You can't disbelieve in the God that exists because you have completely forgotten he does. He is a total unknown to you. He is a big surprise you know nothing about. :D You can't disbelieve in what you know nothing about any more than what believers believe God is is God. You believe that something that does not exist does not exist and they believe that it does. You are just like them, deluded.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
Okay.. if Moonbeam is just trolling, the joke's on me then. Guess I should have realized it sooner.

God, I hope he's just trolling. Or is a recent lobotomy victim. Either one of those would make a lot more sense then what I've been reading the last few posts.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Okay.. if Moonbeam is just trolling, the joke's on me then. Guess I should have realized it sooner.

God, I hope he's just trolling. Or is a recent lobotomy victim. Either one of those would make a lot more sense then what I've been reading the last few posts.

Billions of people and thousands of years of time and nobody has told you a final truth you can understand. And you still think you will get there with words for your verbal brain. You would have better luck with a lobotomy because it's indeed what the truth will do. He who knows doesn't have a need to think. Mountains are mountains to the lobotomized just like they are to the Knower. There is just knowing and knowing that you know, no?

Hint: If you are scratching your head over a paradox, the truth may be very near.

It is defensiveness that makes people react as if they were under attack. Truth is an attack on defensiveness. No defensiveness and the truth is there.

"I'm too proud to be nothing, God Damn it!" Hehe!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
I'm sure that in the end we are all nothing, I don't have a belief in any afterlife. I'm not defending myself, I'm telling you that what you are saying is stupid. Like I said before, I'm not going to try to change your mind... that never works. At first I was irritated by your comfort in ignorance, now it's just sort of sad. Not only are you putting forth ideas that are stupid, but you think that you're somehow in on a secret and revel in your stupidity. Someday you will grow out of this phase... but I guess today's not that day.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sure that in the end we are all nothing, I don't have a belief in any afterlife. I'm not defending myself, I'm telling you that what you are saying is stupid. Like I said before, I'm not going to try to change your mind... that never works. At first I was irritated by your comfort in ignorance, now it's just sort of sad. Not only are you putting forth ideas that are stupid, but you think that you're somehow in on a secret and revel in your stupidity. Someday you will grow out of this phase... but I guess today's not that day.

My friend, you only describe yourself. But you aren't sad. You could not be other than as you are. You must protect your ego. And the afterlife starts with the death of the false self, that ego, not with physical death. Who knows what happens then.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,982
55,381
136
There is no point to this anymore. I give up! You have simply worn me into submission with your psychobabble.

I'm pretty much at the end of my patience with you, so I'm just going to leave this where it is. (wherever it is the sick donkey humping disaster that this conversation has become might even be)
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,918
2,883
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is no point to this anymore. I give up! You have simply worn me into submission with your psychobabble.

I'm pretty much at the end of my patience with you, so I'm just going to leave this where it is. (wherever it is the sick donkey humping disaster that this conversation has become might even be)

You have to take moonbeam with a grain of salt. I got pissed off at him a lot when I first came here, but then I read his sig more closely and really took it to heart.

"The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish"

Now I just get a good laugh.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is no point to this anymore. I give up! You have simply worn me into submission with your psychobabble.

I'm pretty much at the end of my patience with you, so I'm just going to leave this where it is. (wherever it is the sick donkey humping disaster that this conversation has become might even be)

You have to take moonbeam with a grain of salt. I got pissed off at him a lot when I first came here, but then I read his sig more closely and really took it to heart.

"The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish"

Now I just get a good laugh.
Actually what your post does is prove what I said in my sig, that some are too shallow to understand.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,918
2,883
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is no point to this anymore. I give up! You have simply worn me into submission with your psychobabble.

I'm pretty much at the end of my patience with you, so I'm just going to leave this where it is. (wherever it is the sick donkey humping disaster that this conversation has become might even be)

You have to take moonbeam with a grain of salt. I got pissed off at him a lot when I first came here, but then I read his sig more closely and really took it to heart.

"The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion (and,or) may include subtleties of sufficient rarity as to appear to the unsuspecting like total gibberish"

Now I just get a good laugh.
Actually what your post does is prove what I said in my sig, that some are too shallow to understand.


You are insane, but thats ok, because its funny.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
So Moonbeam is being sarcastic? He's not serious? I think I kind of get it. Here I thought he was being all jaded and useless. I could be clever and reply Uranium has no use to a caveman true, but that doesn't mean he should discount rocks. But I have a suspicion I wasn't playing with uranium anyway. Haha?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
Originally posted by: Aisengard
So Moonbeam is being sarcastic? He's not serious? I think I kind of get it. Here I thought he was being all jaded and useless. I could be clever and reply Uranium has no use to a caveman true, but that doesn't mean he should discount rocks. But I have a suspicion I wasn't playing with uranium anyway. Haha?

OK I'll try to help you through it again:

A: As much as you enjoy the sound of your own speech and your intro to psychology bullshit, it really doesn't mean anything, and is utterly useless.

M: Now first off remember that you know nothing but think you do because you are stuffed full of yourself. You know nothing about what I enjoy. Therefore only from self observation could you have ever come to the conclusion that I love the sound of my own speech. This is called projection and is a scientifically provable scientific fact. It is your lack of knowledge that causes it to look like bullshit because that's what you are full of and therefore see in everybody and everything else. You make no case, you have no argument, you simply spout and pronounce like a wind up music box.

A: I could say "oh yeah, I know nothing, silly me,

M: You say you could but the fact is you can't because you know nothing about humility. You are ashamed you know nothing and that's why you have to pretend.

A: let's stop everything and revel in the fact that we know nothing,

M: You see, for you everything is about reveling because you need to preen yourself and imagine you are something even if it's pride in being nothing. You have no humility so you can't imagine you can just be a nothing and that is that. You need to be the world's greatest nothing if you are going there.

A: so there is no point in discussing topics because after all we don't know anything about them",

M: No, there is no intention on your part to have a discussion because we are discussing something right now, something that leads where you don't want to go. Everything is wonderful as long as you have control, but when a mirror appears you run for the hills and call out the put down dogs. You want old Moonbeam to feel that he's the problem. Hehe, you may be a one-eyed Jack, Dad, but I seen the other side of your face.

A: but then I'd be a jaded Psych major who just realized his degree is meaningless and he provides no worth to the world around him, except for hoping others will lap up his bullshit so he can feel important.

M: Again you know nothing about how important I am or need to be so you tell me all about yourself and what you do to keep from feeling how worthless you feel. I'm sorry to hear that you're jaded but of course I already knew. Pretension is exhausting. When you realize you don't know anything and don't need to you will become quite relaxed and even start having some real down to earth fun.

A: I think I'll just choose to believe that we know *something* but we can never know *everything*. That way I won't just be spouting off silly little quotes from a scientist who one day decided to be philosophical.

M: Why not instead realize you know nothing. At least you'll be right about that. But don't tell anybody else they they know nothing because they'll get really upset. :D
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let's be logical for a second. When you look at the world you see that people whose parents were Christians and grew up exposed to Christian ideas turn out, generally speaking, to be Christians and so on for every other religion in the world. Nobody who never heard of Hinduism, for example expresses a belief in Indian Deities. Every religious person, generally speaking believes in the religion he was raised around and in.

Logic tells you, therefore, that whatever it is you believe is an accident. All the religious people in the world just happened to be born in the only true religion, their own. Logic tells us, therefore, that if you think you know the true religion you are completely wrong. If you were born elsewhere or in a different time you would believe some completely different only truth.

Logically therefore, religion is just an accretion of horse poo, except for the fact that every were you go in any time there is always some religion. So something in the human animal keeps making up regions that are the absolute truth and therefore obviously not the truth at all.

Logically, therefore, the truth is that man invents religions, millions of them endlessly and all of them are the only way.

Logically, then, some people, the folk who start religions, are having some sort of experience, prefrontal lobe epilepsy, chemically induced hallucinations, meditatively induced brain function alteration, psychic vision, discourse with higher beings, mental illness, extreme mental health, or something or other that alters their consciousness is some way as to produce experiences that create a sense of finality, certainty, and meaning, some deep psychological sense of well being and connection with life that induces them to want to share this with others.

Logically then, God, Nirvana, the great Spirit, Atman, all the millions of names associated with this mental sense are just arrows pointing to the fact that contained within the human experience is the potential to experience something big.

I would call it the ending of duality and entry into being in the now, a state of undivided consciousness where what is is what is conscious. It is a state of consciousness in which the sense of self disappears and love begins. But that's just more empty words.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Your beliefs about what it is are what make it impossible to experience. It doesn't matter if you say it does not exist. It does not, for you at any rate, so you are not only right if you don't believe, you non-belief insured it does not.

Religion is utter garbage. Non-belief is utter garbage. Garbage collectors like to argue whose garbage stinks the most. What does it matter when it's all garbage. We have all been stuffed full of crap. We know absolutely nothing at all. Do you really wonder why you are all ego? Without your ego you would be who you are.

Interesting bit to chew on :)