northwest Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Since you predicted my response, does that mean you have an answer prepared? I've already answered, look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Since you predicted my response, does that mean you have an answer prepared? I've already answered, look. Do you mean post #102? Delusion can be avoided in most cases, I think, by looking at the available evidence using reason, and often by accepting, again using reason, that you just don't know but you also say Most people living in the pre his scientific age, whenever you think that started, surely were deluded. I'm saying they weren't deluded because they used the best reasoning they had. I don't see where you've answered this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway. Isn't that where everyone is all the time anyway? what's so special about now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Who the fuck +1'd that? eta +2! Who said anything was special about now? Edited May 6, 2011 by northwest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) I'm saying they were deluded when the best evidence they had wasn't enough to reasonably conclude anything, but they did anyway. That's fine. But how do you judge what was reasonable? If people had no evidence to draw a conclusion then experimentation is required. Is it not reasonable that they drew conclusions from experiments without understanding of experimental bias? "Kill a virgin then crops grow" must have seemed pretty compelling evidence. "If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic to me. I don't think we disagree that these days we can easily model the effects of sacrifice on crop growth and determine that the two are independent. Also that we can model the effects of things such as praying, homeopathy, astrology, faith healing, psychics, crystal power, reflexology, reiki etc and equally show that they have no demonstrable effect beyond a placebo. I think the only disagreement is that I don't think the origins of these practices were delusional. I think they were based on reasonable thought processes at the time. Of course, their continued practice is another issue altogether and one that strays into issues of power and money and more modern human failings. Anyway, I'm sorry you were bored NW. I find it quite interesting to see how other people think. edited for stoopid spelling Edited May 6, 2011 by strawberry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Don't worry, I don't mind, I just wonder why I'm answering all these questions but it's fine, whatever. Your Newton question was a good one. 'If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic too me.' Great quotes emerge. Can I use that as my signature? In the circumstances it might've been a reasonable experiment I suppose but it couldn't really be a reasonable conclusion for long. You only have to say, hold on, the crops aren't growing, maybe this virgin sacrificing thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? Edited May 6, 2011 by northwest 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry Posted May 6, 2011 Share Posted May 6, 2011 Don't worry, I don't mind, I just wonder why I'm answering all these questions but it's fine, whatever. Your Newton question was a good one. All's well... 'If it doesn't work in the future, kill more virgins until the crops do grow" -- seems like reasonable logic too me.' Great quotes emerge. Can I use that as my signature? Of course, though I'm sure there's better on this site. (But please correct my spelling if you do, 'too' vs 'to' grrr.) In the circumstances it might've been a reasonable experiment I suppose but it couldn't really be a reasonable conclusion for long. You only have to say, hold on, the crops aren't growing, maybe this virgin sacrificing thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? That's why I stopped killing virgins and joined uk420 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troy Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Religion privileges faith over reason so will always be in opposition to science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarchild Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy? Hows about philosophy vs science for a three way triangular tournament to the death :laser: Lets settle this once and for all 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest weirdofmouth Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 what about Eating v Breathing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troy Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) what about Eating v Breathing? Thats what your epiglottis is for. So the two don't get mixed up. Whats your take on philosophy versus religion Troy? Religion is one of our first attempts at philosophy and as we have accumulated more knowledge often from science, religion has become discredited and outdated. Because religion is dogmatic it will only make any changes when it is forced to. Darwinian evolution changed our whole idea about how we came to be here and now some religious types are saying that God tweaked the process. They have appropriated the concept and put their own spin on it. It just demonstrates how malleable religion can be for the credulous. Edited May 18, 2011 by troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarchild Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Shite, I meant philosophy verus science My point though was about the complete lack of evidence for many of the theories espoused by philosophers regarding the whole "what the hell are we here for and what, exactly is here?" question. This is similar to the musings of people who would consider themselves "not atheist" as opposed to religious. I dont consider myself religious but do think quite often about the nature of existence in a kind of wishy, washy, new age spiritual, had too many mushies sort of way. This does not in any way affect the way I view science. Its just that I have a feeling for, rather than a belief in the something other than the mecahanical processes that explain the world around us. I dont see a contradiction with believing the theory of evolution and also wondering why there is life, (not how there is life) Nothing to do with a creator or a designer, or anything like that. Do you just dismiss stuff like that and just stick to that which has solid evidence to back it up? Or can possibly have evidence to back it up. I guess I'm interested in whether you ponder stuff like "why is the universe here?, why does anything exist?" or do you just not waste your time? I would agree with you about religion in the organised sense being in a great many instances ridiculous and at odds with science, but where does spirituality/philosophy/non-atheism become ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troy Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 hey dude, my knowledge of philosophy is in its early stages. I know that hawking said philosophy is dead ! which seems an exaggeration but I think he had some kind of point. Philosophy is interesting because it is the search for knowledge but without empiricism in the scientific sense. Philosophers use their reasoning to figure out the nature of reality and how we came to be here. I think they put ideas out into the world and then people argue with them and see if they can make any sense of the world. Philosophy encourages us to think critically about the world but does not necessarily furnish any answers, just more things to think about ! However it does challenge existing ideas and that encourages critical thinking. I've never really considered why the universe is here, it just is and i'm glad to be part of it. I don't think there is any meaning to life apart from what we decide is important to us. I think I was born an atheist (wasn't everybody ?) and am more interested in how we came to be here rather than why. We are stardust which manifests into conscious organisms and I am glad to have that opportunity. Maybe I am lacking in the 'why ' gene because that seems unimportant to me. I would agree with you about religion in the organised sense being in a great many instances ridiculous and at odds with science, but where does spirituality/philosophy/non-atheism become ok? I don't understand the question, can you clarify ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now