Time Scale

[Auric]

I watched a flick based upon the Scopes Monkey Trial wherein a crowd of old geezers sang That Old-Time Religion (it was good for blah blah and it is good enough for me, and so on).

Now, one thing that sticks in my craw is stubborn ignorance and this is soitently that. They are essentially saying they refuse to question and are complacent with the knowledge they have, such that it is, and can't be arsed to think. Indeed, they are adamantly opposed to same. Furthermore, they consider Judeo-Christianity "Old Timey". Now, irregardless (ha) of when life as we understand it began, I do not consider that old, at all. Based upon documented human lifespans, two-thousand years from the supposed birth of Yeshua bin Yosef is as little as fifteen consecutive lives. Other animals can live considerably longer.

So, at this late hour, I posit (the indubitability not-new idea) that one's notion of certainty and indeed self-importance, tends to be inversely proportional to one's sense of scale (by nearly any categorical measure). Discuss... or tell a fart joke.

 

[Flyback]

How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

 

[TwiceOver]

Originally posted by: Auric
I watched a flick based upon the Scopes Monkey Trial wherein a crowd of old geezers sang That Old-Time Religion (it was good for blah blah and it is good enough for me, and so on).

Now, one thing that sticks in my craw is stubborn ignorance and this is soitently that. They are essentially saying they refuse to question and are complacent with the knowledge they have, such that it is, and can't be arsed to think. Indeed, they are adamantly opposed to same. Furthermore, they consider Judeo-Christianity "Old Timey". Now, irregardless (ha) of when life as we understand it began, I do not consider that old, at all. Based upon documented human lifespans, two-thousand years from the supposed birth of Yeshua bin Yosef is as little as fifteen consecutive lives. Other animals can live considerably longer.

So, at this late hour, I posit (the indubitability not-new idea) that one's notion of certainty and indeed self-importance, tends to be inversely proportional to one's sense of scale (by nearly any categorical measure). Discuss... or tell a fart joke.

1/10 Your joke sucks.

 

[Modeps]

A mathematician, a philosopher, and a blonde all go to Hell and receive a challenge from Satan: if they can stump him, they'll be set free, and be able to go to Heaven. The philosopher goes first and asks the Devil a very hard philosophy question, to which the Devil snaps his fingers, gets a laptop, goes online, and gives the answer. The mathematician tries as well, but the Devil instantly gets the answer by using his laptop. When it comes down to the blonde, she pulls up a chair, drills three holes in it, sits down and farts.

Now... she says, Which hole did the fart come out of?

That's easy, says Satan, All three!

No! It came out of my butthole!

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

If you stop questioning, they don't taze you.


...and that's good enough for me.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Modeps
A mathematician, a philosopher, and a blonde all go to Hell and receive a challenge from Satan: if they can stump him, they'll be set free, and be able to go to Heaven. The philosopher goes first and asks the Devil a very hard philosophy question, to which the Devil snaps his fingers, gets a laptop, goes online, and gives the answer. The mathematician tries as well, but the Devil instantly gets the answer by using his laptop. When it comes down to the blonde, she pulls up a chair, drills three holes in it, sits down and farts.

Now... she says, Which hole did the fart come out of?

That's easy, says Satan, All three!

No! It came out of my butthole!

:thumbsup:

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Auric

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

If you stop questioning, they don't taze you.


...and that's good enough for me.

True, dat.

Which is why discouraging questioning is beneficial for those in power whilst complacency and acquiescence are easier for those who are not. It's easier not to think anyway, no?

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

Right....but where does that lead you? Solipsism is cool in theory, but I don't find it all too pleasant as a belief system.

Where do you draw the line and how do you justify one position over another? (That's what I'm getting at; how can you criticize others if you are not an extreme skeptic yourself?)

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

Right....but where does that lead you? Solipsism is cool in theory, but I don't find it all too pleasant as a belief system.

Where do you draw the line and how do you justify one position over another? (That's what I'm getting at; how can you criticize others if you are not an extreme skeptic yourself?)

Woah there, you assume too much with solipsism. I do not contend the self is particularly any more knowable.

Besides, if a belief system is inherently pleasant then chances are it really is more make-believe than rational.

Proving is secondary to merely accepting the unknowable. Which is odd, 'cause that's just god by another name. Yet those of faith are so oft entrenched in supposed knowledge of same.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

Right....but where does that lead you? Solipsism is cool in theory, but I don't find it all too pleasant as a belief system.

Where do you draw the line and how do you justify one position over another? (That's what I'm getting at; how can you criticize others if you are not an extreme skeptic yourself?)

Woah there, you assume too much with solipsism. I do not contend the self is particularly any more knowable.

Besides, if a belief system is inherently pleasant then chances are it really is more make-believe than rational.

Proving is secondary to merely accepting the unknowable. Which is odd, 'cause that's just god by another name. Yet those of faith are so oft entrenched in supposed knowledge of same.

I guess it all comes down to what you deem as justifiable knowledge. Some modern theologians would argue that you can rationalize a God and claimed knowledge of said God in a perfectly justifiable epistemic system.

Whatever floats your boat at the end of the day.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

15 consecutive lives? Only if each person lives 133 years.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Flyback
How do you define the appropriate amount of 'questioning'? Is there a point at which it should stop, or just when it fits what you believe?

What would be the benefit of no longer questioning? Better to accept that one cannot be sure of anything and continue trying to understand than accept everything and reject all challenge (in every sense).

Right....but where does that lead you? Solipsism is cool in theory, but I don't find it all too pleasant as a belief system.

Where do you draw the line and how do you justify one position over another? (That's what I'm getting at; how can you criticize others if you are not an extreme skeptic yourself?)

Woah there, you assume too much with solipsism. I do not contend the self is particularly any more knowable.

Besides, if a belief system is inherently pleasant then chances are it really is more make-believe than rational.

Proving is secondary to merely accepting the unknowable. Which is odd, 'cause that's just god by another name. Yet those of faith are so oft entrenched in supposed knowledge of same.

I guess it all comes down to what you deem as justifiable knowledge. Some modern theologians would argue that you can rationalize a God and claimed knowledge of said God in a perfectly justifiable epistemic system.

Whatever floats your boat at the end of the day.

You can rationalize any God you want, but when it really comes down to it, any "knowledge" of such God is essentially based on nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Auric

Woah there, you assume too much with solipsism. I do not contend the self is particularly any more knowable.

Besides, if a belief system is inherently pleasant then chances are it really is more make-believe than rational.

Proving is secondary to merely accepting the unknowable. Which is odd, 'cause that's just god by another name. Yet those of faith are so oft entrenched in supposed knowledge of same.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. The purpose of man's life.is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." -Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

The quote seems to apply.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
You can rationalize any God you want, but when it really comes down to it, any "knowledge" of such God is essentially based on nothing but wishful thinking.

That is quite the assertion. How do you know your beliefs about your knowledge of reality aren't themselves wishful thinking?

(Not saying this insultingly, but it comes back to certainty and whether or not it exists.)

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Auric
I watched a flick based upon the Scopes Monkey Trial wherein a crowd of old geezers sang That Old-Time Religion (it was good for blah blah and it is good enough for me, and so on).

Now, one thing that sticks in my craw is stubborn ignorance and this is soitently that. They are essentially saying they refuse to question and are complacent with the knowledge they have, such that it is, and can't be arsed to think. Indeed, they are adamantly opposed to same. Furthermore, they consider Judeo-Christianity "Old Timey". Now, irregardless (ha) of when life as we understand it began, I do not consider that old, at all. Based upon documented human lifespans, two-thousand years from the supposed birth of Yeshua bin Yosef is as little as fifteen consecutive lives. Other animals can live considerably longer.

So, at this late hour, I posit (the indubitability not-new idea) that one's notion of certainty and indeed self-importance, tends to be inversely proportional to one's sense of scale (by nearly any categorical measure). Discuss... or tell a fart joke.

Old timey? Plenty of other religions have come and gone. Ra, Zeus/Jupiter, or various spirits - they're all told as mythology. Some day, God/Jesus, Allah, etc, will also join by their side.

For the good sense of scale, there's always Carl Sagan. Text, or Youtube.

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. The purpose of man's life is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." -Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

The quote seems to apply.

Excellent.

 

[Auric]

Zombies? Sure. Serving a purpose? Feh.

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
15 consecutive lives? Only if each person lives 133 years.

A quick goggle reveals folks have lived to at least 128 years d' age so aboot 15 hu-man lifetimes or certainly 15.68. The fact remains it's not that long. Indeeed, riddle me this: if we call it twenty centuries rather than the stereotypical two-thousand years, does it seem a bit less?

I reckon most folks have a very narrow sense of time which, as said, serves to make 'em figger they are more significant than they are.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Careful with that Ayn Rand stuff. Haven't you played Bioshock? Next thing you know, you're injecting Fierce Blue Gatorade into your wrist and wearing bunny ears.