Saturday afternoon rant,,,,,,,,,,Je Suis Charlie inspired

Over time on this forum, I’ve had many conversations addressing various Super-natural, Mystical or Pseudo-Scientific explanations for things (much more than I would have expected tbh). Without getting bogged down in all the same arguments again, I feel the need to express my thoughts more generally.
I may go on a bit here, possibly a stream of consciousness, but I don’t normally and feel there is “something” to be said……I may meander a bit.

Where I’m coming from…

The Maidsafe team have repeatedly stated that logic is their “boss” in regard to the project; logic is my boss too – in everything though. I would/could/do argue that this is the only rational thing we can do.
When I talk of “Science”, I (usually) mean it in the more general sense of using the scientific method, rational thinking, logic etc – “Believing” in Science is not really the same as believing in Religions and the like – they are entirely different concepts with completely different reasons for (and meanings of) “belief.”
I’m not a “believer” in Science any more than I’m a believer in aeroplanes or computers – it’s just not the right word. I believe the scientific method is the best means we have to investigate the nature of reality….that’s what I believe.
I am not expounding the virtues of an alternative “belief system” – I am promoting critical, logical and free thinking – religions and the like are just top of my (long) list of irrational and harmful ideas that are diametrically opposed to my basic belief. I am more interested in how people think, rather than what they think.

The problem we run into when arguing……

,….is that the methods we use to arrive at our beliefs are vastly different. If a religious person is being intellectually honest for example, they would be obliged to say that their method of “knowing” is Faith. Because of this, I would argue that it is impossible to have any rational discussion on the matter. In order to progress any further, it would be incumbent on the person invoking “faith” to explain how this is:

a) a reliable way of “knowing” anything
b) how it is any different from “imagining” or “pretending” etc
c) how the process works etc

scientifically and convincingly, otherwise they have basically just excused themselves from the grown up table……in my opinion. Certainly no further “rational” conversation can take place: However people do continue anyway, usually using the clever “it just does coz I say so” argument or merely state I’m deficient in some way or just play the “offence” card.
By asking me to accept “Faith” (on faith!), - a person is also invoking what is the debating “red card” term of “special-pleading” – again they should be sent off the pitch: The argument that “Faith works” is based on the premise that “Faith works” – the conclusion is the premise – it is non-sensical and circular.

Btw….does anybody (other than me) see a big woolly hypocritical Mammoth in the room here…? (This applies, at a minimum to all advocates of any of the 3 major mono-theistic religions currently supporting Maidsafe)).

“How do you square advocating belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent god, with the aims/values of this project?”

I think the following quote is a fair appraisal of the character of your god btw (backed up by text from Bible):

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
R. Dawkins

Not even seen such bad press for D.Irvine…yet……lol.

Seriously though, it’s belief in an ultimate in your face authority, all up in your business judgemental bastard and if he doesn’t agree with you or you don’t praise him all day, Guantanamo would be like a holiday camp by comparison….seriously what’s good about it? Why would you even want any of it to be true……lol……praising some arse hole 24/7, singing hymns……FOREVER……lol…
This is what I mainly don’t get – is the gloating over the un-saved, so attractive? If there was even a slim chance of it not being true I’d be at least INVESTIGATING other more scientific explanations – Nevermind that for it to be true, all rationality/logic has to be thrown out the window, all laws of Physics overturned, all morality skewn…And this is on top of the glaringly obvious reasons why/how Govts use religions to manipulate/mobilise their populations and have done throughout history.
How is this not all really obvious? Is it really just me?
Loads of posters on here rail against Corporations stealing your data, advertisers manipulating you, various conspiracies etc, but nobody seems to properly investigate or even recognise the Mammoth.
Nevermind your data, these people want your minds, nevermind the “app level” data theft, look at what basic “operating system” you have running, check it makes sense as it affects basic logic commands and everything else on your “computer” (or mind) – it is the back end of you as a person and vitally important – don’t let it be corrupted……aaaarrrrggggghhhhh………

Rant over…,

Mostly you are speaking of Warren.

Epistemology is always the core issue. Many leading theoretical physicists believe the whole show to be a simulation these days.

1 Like

yes, I agree with the physicist thing - they have rational reasons to believe the things they do - the mono- theistic religions I refer to do not. Not sure of the point tbh
I agree with the Warren thing too…lol
In regard to Epistemology, I’m kinda with Russell and Occam and the like.

I will not continue the discussion just a point.

The argument that “the works faith” is based on the premise that “Faith works” - the conclusion is the premise - which is pointless and circular.

For me it is exactly like the first law of thermodynamics and the basis of all science “energy is neither created nor destroyed only transformed” argument here is also pointless circular is to authenticate Taulogía.

Not really getting you here… there is no argument involved, circular or otherwise nor tautology? How is the first law of thermodynamics in any way disputable/arguable - there are equations that demonstrate its efficacy…it’s maths.
Lawrence Krauss does a good lecture about how the Universe must have started with zero energy and explains how “something comes out of nothing” etc if you are interested. You’re not suggesting Faith is a better way to “know” something than the scientific method are you?
I’m not saying we 100% “know” everything, just that we have “reason to believe”, rather than “faith to believe”.

All of everything is code. Be it our DNA or E=MC squared or whatever.

Eventually we can boil it down and boil it down but we will land on truth by fiat. Tis what it tis and the answer to why is “it is what it is” and that isn’t incompatible with “God spoke and there is”… The universe does what it’s coded to do…

Are you saying there is some “hidden truth” in religious text that is somehow consistent with the findings of modern physics. If so you are invoking supernaturalism, as humanity did not have the technical knowledge of modern physics at the time of their writing. Is this the case, or can you give me another reason for inserting “God” quite unnecessarily?
The findings of modern physics are just as consistent with “The turtle shat” or “the monkey burped” etc in exactly the same way– what’s so special about “god spoke”?

I would argue that eliminating the possibility of a coder when you encounter a system bound by code, is unscientific

Nobody can prove a negative…

That doesn’t mean it is, doesn’t mean it isn’t. My point is that if you think you have the answers better than the next guy your are an arrogant blow-hard… To quote “who’s line is it anyway” , “everything is made up and the points don’t matter”.

Degrassi Tyson tells us we ought to discard studying the philosophers… That is anti-academic, and just as bad as the religious nuts who insist on discarding scientific observation…

1 Like

I haven’t eliminated the possibility of a coder in anything I’ve said - all that would demonstrate is that a higher intelligence created the Universe - not the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah - you would still have all your work to do to demonstrate any of that was true.
As you say, the Universe could be mathematical intrinsically - it just is- as you say - no coder required.
What answers have I arrogantly claimed I have and why do you accuse me of being a “blow-hard”.
I think you just sounded the argument retreat by reverting to personal attack without justification and letting my points go un-answered tbh.
Not sure what last jibe about, don’t watch who’s line is it anyway, not discarded philosophers, not been anti-academic, not as bad as religious nuts…
Nice talking to you…lol

I didn’t accuse you of anything. I am just speaking of the "Science rules over all other academic thought’ crowd. You can choose to be in that camp or not. I didn’t put you there…

I tend to agree that Math trumps science. Eventually we get to laws of fiat… The universe follows rules and the reason for those rules are because the rules are the rules.

Did I read this wrong? Why tell me what “Degrassi Tyson tells us” if not pointedly, then it was pointlessly.
There is some confusion here, I would class both “all other academic thought” and “math” under my broad understanding/meaning of Science.
I think you may be confusing Theology with Philosophy, so you may want to place me in a particular camp - The camp that does not recognise Theology as an academic subject, nor as Science.

Do you have answers to all of the universes questions? If so I was talking about you. If not, no…

All of this bickering is pointless. Nobody has the answers, and the more seriously you take the question the more irrelevant you make yourself… Particularly when you use it to classify everyone who disagrees with you as not worthy of consideration.

Oh Dear…back to the unwarranted insults again…unless you’re just pointlessly, rather than pointedly remarking again…sounds a bit disingenuous to be honest though.

Couldn’t disagree more…

Just on the off chance you are accusing me of this, rather than just saying it for no particular reason, then at least back this up with something. I’m also a Humanist, so never classify anyone as not worthy of consideration…their ideas are a different matter…seriously man, say something constructive, don’t just throw mud and construct straw men…its tedious

No. I am not talking about you - unless you are the kind of person who does this.

I know the type. I don’t know you…

Because your are so defensive about it, I suspect you might be the type.

dunno - don’t really care…

It is better not to bicker. Mysteries of the universe are mysteries… Nobody has enough information to be right at this point.

Wow…deep man…lol. Throughout history, the Scientific method has revealed more about our Universe and things that used to be explained by religious/super-natural means. Now, thanks to people such as Darwin, Einstein, Dirac etc, the mysterious curtain is being pulled back. You are correct that it is “information” that is lacking to answer other deeper mysteries remaining.
I’m saying that the best way to even have a chance to investigate further is by using the scientific method- not faith.
You seem to be saying that some things are just so mysterious we can never understand them by any method and therefore faith is as good a method as any - it is not. I think usually people who think this way are talking about non-questions that may have no meaning - such as "What is the meaning/purpose/plan for humanity etc. All these things presume a creator, when it is highly unlikely there was one- in the sense religious texts portray. The OP was clearly restricted to the 3 major mono-theistic religions btw - as they are the one’s causing most harm in the real world - again just graphically illustrated in France. This is why I rail against religion - not because I’m an arrogant Dick - I’m an arrogant Dick for other reasons…lol .
Do you think you’d have loads of loud mouthed Athiests running around shrieking at everybody if religions were benign? This is not just some existential mental masturbation exercise - it is a concerted attempt to overcome harmful ideas, based on bronze age thinking by way of education to fight the ignorance. If this sounds arrogant…so be it. I would however say that this would be breath-taking hypocrisy coming from any mono-theist believing they not only know there was a creator, but know his mind and his wishes and believe he has a plan that involves them personally and that that gives them the right to judge others and tell them how to live…all without a shred of evidence…now that’s arrogance. WTF am I arrogantly claiming? That they are talking shite?.

I think your issue is that you’re trying to apply the scientific method to something that’s beyond it.

How could we, from our position in the universe, scientifically verify anything outside of or beyond the universe that isn’t part of the same framework?

We can’t even explain dark matter yet, let alone things completely beyond the universe (if they exist).

If you’re getting into discussions about the supernatural with the premise that supernatural things must be explained using non-supernatural means, then it shouldn’t be surprising that you’re getting frustrated.

The fact is that many very rational people believe in a God or the supernatural, and many rational people do not. You don’t seem to think that another person could be rational, have a different perspective, experience, and world view that leads to a different but rational conclusion about the existence of a deity or supernatural realm. Dismissing their rationality as worthless because your rationale leads to a different conclusion about the supernatural seems closed minded, though of course you arriving at your rational conclusion that there is no supernatural is no indication of closed mindedness.

If you really want to understand the religious, I wouldn’t recommend reading Dawkins - he’s kind of one sided (though I couldn’t say what to recommend!).

No, it isn’t…I’m not applying the scientific method to investigate anything beyond the Universe whatsoever. If you are stating that something beyond it exists, then the onus is on you to show that it does.

We couldn’t…nor could any of the (human) writers of the religious texts…that’s kind of my point.

It’s ill thought out arguments like this that frustrate me…I can’t understand magic because I don’t talk the magic language…is that it? If you are claiming something super-natural exists then again the onus is on you to make your argument for it…go ahead

…has no bearing on the truth of the matter

Incorrect… they could rationally reach the conclusion of a theistic deity, only if they accepted faith as an effective method of knowing something - again the onus would be on the person to demonstrate that it was - this would have to be done rationally without resorting to “it just is” or similar…this is where it usually breaks down.
The belief itself could not be rationally defended because it flies in the face of all rationality and scientific knowledge. Religions are making scientific claims – science isn’t making religious claims-you’ve inverted the argument. Religions say that the laws of physics are suspended in their favour somehow so their claims have to stand up to scientific scrutiny - and they don’t.

It often does for some reason…it clearly isn’t though. Closed mindedness is ignoring any evidence that does not support your case or ignoring the arguments against it…I do not do this.
Dawkins is one-sided? What does that mean…lol By the way, I do not get all my worldview from just one book…you are confusing me with…er…the religious
Sorry, to clarify, I’m talking about the 3 major mono-theistic religions - I am not saying you couldn’t rationally formulate an argument in support of some kind of deity - not one I’d find very convincing though and “belief” in it would be a different matter - all the above would apply again…

They also may rationally respond to historical documents differently to you, and rationally respond to unexplainable events they have witnessed to come to a different conclusion to you that leads to faith in something supernatural.

Faith is not the method of knowing, but faith can be a rational response to someone’s experiences, or, for example if they believe & don’t dismiss what’s written in the Bible or other text.

He’s not trying to understand the religious, and bases his arguments criticising theism on assumptions that make no sense if there is actually a God.

For example, in the quote you gave of Dawkins, you mentioned that God of the old testament being jealous & for ethnic cleansing, which indeed sounds terrible, if you assume that there’s no afterlife & that God doesn’t have a different perspective than us. If God is truly God, then his jealousy is merely wanting the best for people, as he knows that in the long term, following him is the best option. Is it bad to want the best for people?

If there were justice in the afterlife, then what’s it better for God to do with an ethnic group that’s doing terrible things that may have later consequences (e.g. Infanticide): let them continue making things worse for themselves in the long term while causing suffering in the short term, or decide to end their innings at that point, moving them to a better afterlife, which may last much longer than this life? Is it bad to want the best for people?

These are supposed to be examples of how changing assumptions can change whether an action or property seems bad or good.

If you try to judge God of the old testament with assumptions in place that the rest of the story isn’t true, it’s not surprising that he doesn’t make sense to you. It’s either the whole package is right or wrong, but cherry picking bits & ignoring context completely isn’t a good way of deciding against something, as your quote seems to do.

What you are talking about, is personal belief and how this is “rationalised” to “oneself” - I could rationalise many things to myself, such as the Universe sprang from a giant blue frog’s arse or something……the point is and you’ve already made it yourself - that nobody inside the Universe (religions included) can possibly have any knowledge about what happens outside the Universe –end of. The 3 major religions claim to have this knowledge, whereas science does not – you are clearly inverting the situation and misplacing the burden of proof.
I need go no further than this actually, you made my case for me really……religions claim to know that which cannot be known (by your own reasoning) ……how they come to “know” the un-knowable is a demonstrably irrational and self contradictory question in itself. The only method it can be “believed” is by throwing all reason out of the window and using “Faith”.
By the way, I wouldn’t care if people believed in giant blue frogs and it was benign, it’s when people go around advocating things, based on no rational reason, in the knowledge it causes harm that I have a problem.
In regard to the rest of your post, I have no interest in discussing the character of God, anymore than I would be in Humpty Dumpty …did he jump or was he pushed?..I don’t care…it is fiction. He sounds like a total prick anyway - God I mean…not Humpty…Humpty’s great…I can tell you all about him if you want - great personality…
Edit…Just had a divine vision: