• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Remember atheist believer and think Democratic Republican.

Page 3 - 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
66,816
3,623
126
CW: Truth is a property. My efforts to ascertain/measure that property do not change its intrinsic value. This is a fundamental tenet of science without which we cannot even pretend to apply any scientific theories. For example, if I set out to measure the mass of a liter of water at 20°C and arrive at a value of 1.2 kg, does that mean that its true mass is 1.2 kg? No, it means I'm measuring it incorrectly. In other words, I know what I say is true (at least in any reasonable paradigm of thought) based solely on your arguments from the OP (i.e. that you use reason). The alternatives are that you are unreasonable, do not believe in scientific principles, or are trolling. Pick your poison.

Brain scans reveal: Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amigdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion.

It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe.

However, those aligned to the left had thicker anterior cingulates - which is an area associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Features of conservative and liberal thinking correspond to the functionality of these different parts of the brain.

Such differences will not change how much a volume of water will weigh, but they change the color of reality, whether you respond to the world as threatening or are able to keep fear out of decision making. It will also determine whether you use intelligence to rationalize away unpleasant ideas that threaten your ego, or face facts openly.

M: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Everything I hoped to be true that I had faith was true I destroyed. Then I had to feel the pain I didn't want to feel. I paid quite a price to know nothing.

CW: This is not an assertion that could be made by anyone claiming to be guided by reason. Reason tells us that correlation and causation are not one and the same. I suspect this is the primary reason the site's author was forced to add the disclaimer that this "is not a project of Princeton University" on the front page. You simultaneously mock those who you claim are unable to reason and disbelieve science, then post a link to an unscientific website as proof of your own fringe belief system. In other words, you mock yourself. Let me know when you are able to make a scientifically testable hypothesis which tests Noetic Field Theory. Until then, realize that, by definition, it is not science until it is formulated in a way which is scientifically testable.

M: No assertion was made. I mentioned that I am aware of studies that say random number generators get goofy when big things happen hours before they happen. I have no idea whether it's true or not. I just point to stuff that interests me and from my understanding of your scientific views could not possibly be true. It's again that I know nothing but you know a lot.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
And BTW, only 19% of Democrats believe god was not involved in one way or another.
Democratic party is a rejection of Republican faith? Not hardly.
This will confuse the sheit out of some people who long for me to be their opposition but i an NOT saying that there is no god and that there was no god involved in the process of evolution.

I just don't believe there was simply because there is no need for a god in the process and no evidence of one.

This is what an atheist believes, we don't deny god, we don't say "there is no god", we don't claim any knowledge on the matter, as rational human beings we know that proof is for mathematics and alcohol, but TO BELIEVE in such an extraordinary claim, we'd need evidence and there is NONE.

However you can always hate me for being English, that seems to work for some xbiffx's.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
The Republican party is a religion and a dangerous one. It is a party of the faithful who believe in lies.

The Democratic party is not a religion but a rejection of Republican faith. These are not two different competing religions.

One uses faith and one uses reason. One believes and one is atheistic.

Where do you stand. Are you a religious believer or do you believe in fact science and reason?

A pox on both your houses the disappointed sing because they see only opposites when the two are completely different things.
A classic example:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34071584&postcount=33

EagleKeeper said:
Scholars are not leaders; they are bean counters.
(Posted in response to a factual statement by a relevant scholar that refuted EK's earlier claim.)
 

D-Man

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 1999
2,991
0
71
The Republican party is a religion and a dangerous one. It is a party of the faithful who believe in lies.

The Democratic party is not a religion but a rejection of Republican faith. These are not two different competing religions.

One uses faith and one uses reason. One believes and one is atheistic.

Where do you stand. Are you a religious believer or do you believe in fact science and reason?

A pox on both your houses the disappointed sing because they see only opposites when the two are completely different things.
What a totally insane political hack post this is. Then followed up with a loaded question. I would like to warn other posters who enjoy this forum over 47,000 posts may reduce you to this level of thinking

I am a Conservative
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
Brain scans reveal: Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amigdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion.

It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe.

However, those aligned to the left had thicker anterior cingulates - which is an area associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Features of conservative and liberal thinking correspond to the functionality of these different parts of the brain.

Such differences will not change how much a volume of water will weigh, but they change the color of reality, whether you respond to the world as threatening or are able to keep fear out of decision making. It will also determine whether you use intelligence to rationalize away unpleasant ideas that threaten your ego, or face facts openly.

M: No assertion was made. I mentioned that I am aware of studies that say random number generators get goofy when big things happen hours before they happen. I have no idea whether it's true or not. I just point to stuff that interests me and from my understanding of your scientific views could not possibly be true. It's again that I know nothing but you know a lot.
Your OP champions a belief "in fact science and reason." The rest of your posts simply demonstrate that you don't know what either of those concepts mean. Your posting correlations simply proves that your belief in inherently unscientific findings is at least as strong as those you claim base their beliefs on faith: you have simply chosen a different set of beliefs to back with your faith than those you so detest.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
This will confuse the sheit out of some people who long for me to be their opposition but i an NOT saying that there is no god and that there was no god involved in the process of evolution.

I just don't believe there was simply because there is no need for a god in the process and no evidence of one.

This is what an atheist believes, we don't deny god, we don't say "there is no god", we don't claim any knowledge on the matter, as rational human beings we know that proof is for mathematics and alcohol, but TO BELIEVE in such an extraordinary claim, we'd need evidence and there is NONE.

However you can always hate me for being English, that seems to work for some xbiffx's.
I believe that makes you an Agnostic, not an Athiest.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
CycloWizard: Your OP champions a belief "in fact science and reason."

My OP champions the belief that a belief in fact, science, and reason is not the equivalent of a religious belief.

CW: The rest of your posts simply demonstrate that you don't know what either of those concepts mean.

M: I wouldn't actually have to. They are not the same thing whether I know what they are or not.

CW: Your posting correlations simply proves that your belief in inherently unscientific findings is at least as strong as those you claim base their beliefs on faith: you have simply chosen a different set of beliefs to back with your faith than those you so detest.

M: You post the belief that the findings are inherently unscientific. You have chosen to assert what you do not prove.

A question. Have you ever driven while using a cell phone? If you have, that should give you some food for thought.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
What a totally insane political hack post this is. Then followed up with a loaded question. I would like to warn other posters who enjoy this forum over 47,000 posts may reduce you to this level of thinking

I am a Conservative
There are a number of things that identify morons who post here. Two of them are these: Those who claim something like somebody is off their meds, and somebody who count other people's post number claiming it means something. I can stop posting. You will always be a moron.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
I believe that makes you an Agnostic, not an Athiest.
Except that he sees no reason to believe in God so he doesn't. If he doesn't believe in God he's an atheist. He isn't undecided on the issue which is what I WOULD call Agnostic.

But imagine if you were a Samurai who had trained his body so that it was fully awake and could function perfectly in the face of death, function without fear. Such a body would be in the present and in the present there is only the now. What would that be, such a state of perfect physical being.

Or imagine a person who worships God with such complete and utter devotion that his love of God is as great as God's love for him. What would that be, a state of perfect emotional being?

Or imagine a mind so powerful that it reaches God conscious understanding, that it stops thought itself and thus time. What would that be, a perfect conscious awareness.

God is not a person or entity. God is a perfect state of being that has 7 doors. Body, heart, mind, body-heart, body-mind, heart-mind, and body-mind-heart.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
that's what I keep trying to tell you fucks...

There is no difference between one organized religion over another... Be it a Republican or a Democrat god...

so you can take that god bless America BS and shovel it up your ass.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Except that he sees no reason to believe in God so he doesn't. If he doesn't believe in God he's an atheist. He isn't undecided on the issue which is what I WOULD call Agnostic.

But imagine if you were a Samurai who had trained his body so that it was fully awake and could function perfectly in the face of death, function without fear. Such a body would be in the present and in the present there is only the now. What would that be, such a state of perfect physical being.

Or imagine a person who worships God with such complete and utter devotion that his love of God is as great as God's love for him. What would that be, a state of perfect emotional being?

Or imagine a mind so powerful that it reaches God conscious understanding, that it stops thought itself and thus time. What would that be, a perfect conscious awareness.

God is not a person or entity. God is a perfect state of being that has 7 doors. Body, heart, mind, body-heart, body-mind, heart-mind, and body-mind-heart.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[
Monotheism is also the position there are no deities.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
CycloWizard: Your OP champions a belief "in fact science and reason."

My OP champions the belief that a belief in fact, science, and reason is not the equivalent of a religious belief.

CW: The rest of your posts simply demonstrate that you don't know what either of those concepts mean.

M: I wouldn't actually have to. They are not the same thing whether I know what they are or not.

CW: Your posting correlations simply proves that your belief in inherently unscientific findings is at least as strong as those you claim base their beliefs on faith: you have simply chosen a different set of beliefs to back with your faith than those you so detest.

M: You post the belief that the findings are inherently unscientific. You have chosen to assert what you do not prove.

A question. Have you ever driven while using a cell phone? If you have, that should give you some food for thought.
I have demonstrated that your belief in science is faith-based rather than being based on reason or knowledge. As such, it is no different than most forms of religious belief. As far as my not proving that your correlation-based arguments are not science, I do not need to - they are outside the realm of science by the definition of science. If I cannot test the hypothesis, then it is not scientific in nature.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
CycloWizard: I have demonstrated that your belief in science is faith-based rather than being based on reason or knowledge. As such, it is no different than most forms of religious belief.

M: Interesting, I completely missed it. Can you state it very simply for me?

CW: As far as my not proving that your correlation-based arguments are not science, I do not need to - they are outside the realm of science by the definition of science. If I cannot test the hypothesis, then it is not scientific in nature.

M: What hypothesis can't you test. If you take a bunch of self reported conservatives and measure their right amigdala compared to self reported liberals and find it is statistically larger and you know that part of the brain is involved in emotions like fear, and you then take a bunch of self reported conservatives and liberals and show them a picture of something fearful and something beautiful and the conservatives focus on the negative image and liberals on the positive, you can form a testable hypothesis, no? Jesus, all this research was done by scientists.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS