Quote :

"Corruption I'll give you. Almost all human organizations are corrupt, and especially churches. To attempt to disassociate intolerance and the stifling of scientific achievement from the religion however is asinine. These wouldn't exist in the theocracy without the theism. These are entirely dependent on the religion that the theocracy is based on. And I'll agree the the shit in the Middle East is way more complex than "religion did it". I'm not sure I heard Osama Bin Laden claim that his battle against America had anything to do with the Shahs, however. What I do know is that terrorists are driven to become martyrs because they are being manipulated through their beliefs."

When Christianity dropped the fucking ball and burned nearly every book left over from antiquity, Islam's religious tenets had a lot to do with Arabs preserving Greek knowledge and extending it with respect to astronomy and mathematics.

Also LOL at Grumpy proving in this thread why he's too good for you assholes. Haven't witnessed this much ownage in TSB in years.

5/26/2010 8:18:28 AM

The question of ownage aside, that shitty wheel metaphor he deigned to go along with makes everyone involved in it look foolish. To wit:

Quote :

"If we're stuck with fucked up wheels, then we might as well work on the roads."

HOW ABOUT DITCHING THE WHEEL (RELIGION)

then perhaps you could reinvent it

5/26/2010 8:29:38 AM

GrumpyGOP pulls a Souter ITT

gettin cookies from liberals. very compelling.

5/26/2010 8:30:12 AM

Its impossible to wholly quanitfy religion's effects as negative or positive. To do that you would have to consider all the potential evils/goods that weren't brought about due to religion; eg wars that weren't fought, the peoples that weren't enslaved, the scientific advancements that weren't made, etc. Religion's main focus is, after all, "don't do certain things". Who is to say that more was "done" than "not done" due to religion?

Instead, we should be isolating the current problems religion is creating and critically examining those. Despite what you may hear from extremists on both sides of the issue, you CAN separate good religion from bad.

5/26/2010 8:51:47 AM

Quote :

"gettin cookies from liberals. very compelling."

fuck liberals they're as much a part of the problem as you are

5/26/2010 8:53:36 AM

Quote :

"is that so... Must be nice to live in a fantasy world. You sound just like some southern baptists I know when they describe how good it would be if everyone believed in Jesus"

The fact that anyone would find this comparison apt illustrates how we are currently living in a fantasy world.

Lumex, the potential for the world to improve without religion is but one of the reasons it should be abandoned. Belief in mysticism is flawed. Dedicating your life to such a belief is even more flawed. Attempting to influence others based on such a belief is worse than flawed. Religion is at its core a scam, and every dollar you put in the collection plate is equivalent to paying psychics to talk to your dead grandfather. It's predatory.

Quote :

" It also assumes that without religion, we will develop a morality that fixes any of the problems you mention."

Are you suggesting that morality without religion is impossible? I think that moral authority derived from empathy (the Ethic of Reciprocity or The Golden Rule) is more authoritative than moral authority derived from imaginary friends. We can understand that our lives are finite and therefore valuable. And through empathy we can extend this importance to others.

5/26/2010 9:12:14 AM

Quote :

"A big part of my problem with your whole position is that anything that in any way touches religion gets painted completely with a religious brush. It also assumes that without religion, we will develop a morality that fixes any of the problems you mention. It certainly doesn't require religion to be opposed to, say, stem cell research -- it just takes some ambiguity on where life begins and whether or not it's OK to perform medical research on people you kill. I guess what it comes down to is that you see the religion as a cause of certain problems more often than I do, and I tend to think more often that religion is peripheral to the problem. "

Except, for opposition to stem cell research, it’s one of the things you can definitively tie to religion (via polling). The same can be done to opposition to teaching evolution in schools, or the raping of textbooks in Texas.

It’s as much fantasy to say that we can get rid of religion, as it is to say if we did get rid of religion, scientific achievement wouldn’t take a jump forward.

^ he’s saying the opposite of what you think he’s saying. He’s saying that without religion, people would still be as opposed to stem cell research as now on moral grounds.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 9:20:14 AM

Quote :

"Lumex, the potential for the world to improve without religion is but one of the reasons it should be abandoned. Belief in mysticism is flawed. Dedicating your life to such a belief is even more flawed. Attempting to influence others based on such a belief is worse than flawed. Religion is at its core a scam, and every dollar you put in the collection plate is equivalent to paying psychics to talk to your dead grandfather. It's predatory."

Thats wholly subjective. You can fix all the "flaws" created by a belief in mysticism, and still have plenty of religion left over. You can be wholly logical in thinking and behavior, and still have your actions guided towards good by religion.

Frankly, some people shouldn't have their actions guided wholly by logic. Not that mysticism is the best alternative, but I'll take it over nothing.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 9:46:56 AM

you idiots have no respect for the huge benefits that religion has given us over the generations.

you'd think with as much as you slavishly profess your devotion to science that you'd at least give some goddamn credence to the theory of natural selection.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM. Reason : s]

5/26/2010 9:47:03 AM

disco_stu, while I agree it would be better if everybody were rational, everybody is not rational. Belief in mysticism might be "flawed" but it really depends on what that mysticism is driving toward, doesn't it? Belief in mysticism is what prompted Greeks to invent and develop abstract mathematics. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote :

"you idiots have no respect for the huge benefits that religion has given us over the generations. you'd think with as much as you slavishly profess your devotion to science that you'd at least give some goddamn credence to the theory of natural selection."

Natural selection isn't intended to apply to memes. If you're going to extend it to that, at least call it something new (artificial selection? informational selection? memetic selection?).

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 9:47:29 AM

Quote :

"You can fix all the "flaws" created by a belief in mysticism, and still have plenty of religion left over."

Depending on how you define flaws...

Quote :

"You can be wholly logical in thinking and behavior, and still have your actions guided towards good by religion."

Belief in any common notion of what a religion is, necessarily requires at least some abandonment of wholly logical thinking.

Quote :

"Natural selection isn't intended to apply to memes."

Bullshit. And comparing religion and other pillars of culture to "memes" is a borderline concession to my argument. The study of cultural natural selection is a strong academic field and the idea that culture is subject to natural selection is a very strong theory. GTFO with your meme idiocy.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:55 AM. Reason : s]

5/26/2010 9:52:33 AM

I'm not certain that I buy that belief in mysticism prompted the Greeks to develop abstract mathematics. Any more that I would think that belief in God prompted Lemaître to develop Big Bang Cosmology.

It is bad. We exist in reality and decisions that affect reality should be based on observations and experiences in reality, not delusion.

5/26/2010 9:56:07 AM

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:56 AM. Reason : double post]

5/26/2010 9:56:07 AM

Quote :

"Nazism is obviously different from German patriotism or even nationalism. In the same way, Islamism is obviously different from Islam in general. You're the one who seems to think that German people liking Germany is the fundamental root cause of Nazism."

What I would say is that German nationalism was a fairly important precursor, and incubator, for Nationalist Socialism. To say that you could address Nazism without addressing German nationalism, I think you would agree, is a pretty asinine thing to suggest.

I also think its ridiculous to say that any society faced with the conditions in 1930s Germany would have necessarily spawned anything like Nazism. The twentieth century alone is filled with societies that have gone through difficult periods of economic of political victimization, yet a lot of them, probably even most of them, did not devolve into societies based on religious fundamentalism or homicidal race theories. One might even attribute this fact to the existence of less destructive ideological underpinnings.

Quote :

"If one can demonstrate that a certain factor is not essential to an outcome, I don't see why you shouldn't focus on the factors that are essential to the outcome. That's how you fix the problem."

Good god, man. Just because a variable is not exclusive in its ability to bring about a certain outcome does not mean that it cannot be "essential" to the equation. This is a completely idiotic point you're clinging to.

Quote :

"How is this bigoted? It applies to all people. You take any group, and put them under certain adverse effects, and sooner or later you'll get a violent fringe group out of it."

You are suggesting that Muslims, slaves to their conditions, are incapable of adapting their worldview. Secularism, liberalism, humanism, these are just fashionable sensibilities only comprehensible to Westerners, clear-headed in the absence of such conditions. The Muslim world? No, they need their sharia and their jihad. How could they possibly get on without it?

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 9:57:14 AM

Quote :

"I'm not certain that I buy that belief in mysticism prompted the Greeks to develop abstract mathematics."

Then learn some fucking history. What am I supposed to say to you?

5/26/2010 9:57:39 AM

Quote :

"We exist in reality and decisions that affect reality should be based on observations and experiences in reality, not delusion."

LOL disco_stu thinks everyone is just like him and thinks that once the buffer of religion is removed, they will all react rationally to the harsh realities of nature.

good luck with that.

but then again, we already know it is a failed idea, because a collective atheist/rationalist mindset has not been selected as a trait that contributes to any existing culture's survival.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 10:02 AM. Reason : s]

5/26/2010 10:01:23 AM

"Wholly logical thinking" is how I would characterize the behavior of an animal.

5/26/2010 10:08:04 AM

That's a very simplistic nihilistic view of logic, to say the least.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason : s]

5/26/2010 10:09:09 AM

Quote :

"Then learn some fucking history. What am I supposed to say to you? "

How about pointing me to something to suggests this? Do you have evidence to suggest that belief in mysticism prompted the development of abstract mathematics? I admit I'm not an expert on ancient Greece, but my brief Wikipedia-ing doesn't support this argument very well.

5/26/2010 10:09:28 AM

Quote :

"How about pointing me to something to suggests this? Do you have evidence to suggest that belief in mysticism prompted the development of abstract mathematics?"

Read Pythagoras (will have to find an anthology with some fragments attributable to "Pythagoras" which probably includes his acolytes as well; the theorem was the work of an acolyte of his, probably) and secondary lit on him (both modern historical sources and other sources in antiquity that cite Pythagoras -- check Russell A History of Western Philosophy or Aristotle's Organon. You need to trace the lines of thought from Orpheus forward to the cult centered around Pythagoras after he moved to southern Italy. This means you'll have to read some pre-Socratics, and not a fucking Wikipedia page.

Quote :

"I admit I'm not an expert on ancient Greece, but my brief Wikipedia-ing doesn't support this argument very well."

Oh you don't say?

It's actually pretty cool. When the Pythagoreans discovered incommensurables it was a blow to their theology.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 10:15:48 AM

Quote :

"we already know it is a failed idea, because a collective atheist/rationalist mindset has not been selected as a trait that contributes to any existing culture's survival."

That depends on how you determine when an ideology has failed. I think it's a safe bet that rationalism is the oldest mindset known to man. It has outlived thousands of religions, and will undoubtedly outlive thousands more, almost certainly to include today's major monotheisms. Not to mention that religion itself is a product of rationalism, albeit from a primitive, ignorant form. And there's no reason to think that ideological evolution (if we're going to call it that) has reached its endpoint. Atheism has certainly spread a considerable amount over the last century or so, to the point where religion is all but eradicated on some parts of the globe.

5/26/2010 10:16:55 AM

Quote :

"I think it's a safe bet that rationalism is the oldest mindset known to man."

No fucking way dude, are you kidding?

5/26/2010 10:24:23 AM

No, I am not kidding. There is no reason to believe that human beings were applying metaphysics before they were applying rationality (albeit, as I said, in a crude form). Indeed, as I said, religion itself is a product of rationality. It cannot, therefore, come before it.

5/26/2010 10:42:25 AM

Quote :

"There is no reason to believe that human beings were applying metaphysics before they were applying rationality"

wow, this is the most compelling scientific argument that I've heard in a long time! You really know how to banish faith and biases from your worldview!

5/26/2010 10:44:10 AM

Quote :

"No, I am not kidding. There is no reason to believe that human beings were applying metaphysics before they were applying rationality (albeit, as I said, in a crude form). Indeed, as I said, religion itself is a product of rationality. It cannot, therefore, come before it."

This would be true if religion stemmed from rational metaphysics, but it doesn't. The Greeks, in applying logic to all arenas of argumentation (not just mathematical arguments), ended up applying rational analysis to metaphysics. This is STILL a long way from the modern notion of philosophical logic, and it doesn't mean that religion is based in an application of it to metaphysics. What you're saying demonstrates little to no understanding of intellectual history, so you should probably stop posting and start reading if you want to use your time wisely.

Early religion was a stab at crafting natural explanations, aimed at explaining phenomena. If anything, creation myths and other stabs at religion were just poor scientific theorizing, but it lacked the conceptual machinery to be "rational metaphysics", as you put it, for quite a while.

Early religion was straight-forwardly empirical. Empiricism wasn't influenced by rationality at all until people had a reason to believe the universe was ordered; this was a leap in thought, not "obvious" or "common-sense", and it didn't happen until fairly recently in our species' timespan.

5/26/2010 10:47:24 AM

One does not have to be able to describe rationality in order to be at least crudely rational. Even my dog makes rational decisions based on previously observed data. Early religions, if we can even call them that, were crudely rational theories based on completely insufficient, but nevertheless observable, evidence. That their practitioners could not define "theory" is totally irrelevant.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : sufficuent/efficient]

5/26/2010 11:05:58 AM

Quote :

"One does not have to be able to describe rationality in order to be at least crudely rational."

You don't understand what "rationality" is.

Quote :

"Even my dog makes rational decisions based on previously observed data."

No he doesn't. Dogs rarely maximize utility in their decisions, and often choose poorly. Dogs aren't smart enough to be rational.

Quote :

"Early religions, if we can even call them that, were crudely rational theories based on completely inefficient, but nevertheless observable, evidence. That their practitioners could not define "theory" is totally irrelevant."

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't understand why you continue to talk when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't you feel like a stupid fucking ignoramus? You must know you don't know this stuff at all.

Early religions weren't "rational theories", they were simply dogma. You only start to see actual reasoning and theoretical reduction around the time of Thales. By Xeno, you see an actual modern-style argument.

"Having a reason for something" or "acting on the basis of a belief" is not "rational".

5/26/2010 11:10:30 AM

You're being ridiculous.

5/26/2010 11:15:41 AM

You're being ignorant as fuck and you're just upset that I'm calling you out. If I didn't, then you could play whatever stupid game you're playing and get to pretend that you know things. Wouldn't it just be easier to read books than continue embarrassing yourself publicly?

5/26/2010 11:18:11 AM

I'm not certain what the point of this Classics lesson is.

Great, original rational thought was based at least partly on the belief in mysticism. Does that mean that modern belief in mysticism has anything useful to other regarding rationality? Lay out the point you're trying to make for us plebes.

Because math was based on Greeks who basically made it into their religion, Astrology is useful today?

5/26/2010 11:18:23 AM

Quote :

"I'm not certain what the point of this Classics lesson is."

Somebody made stupid claims with clear historical counter-examples.

Quote :

"Great, original rational thought was based at least partly on the belief in mysticism."

The point is that the two are not necessarily polar opposites, they can be cross-applied, and they developed from EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF ACTIVITY. It doesn't mean modern religions are justified in believing silly shit, but it does mean that mysticism is not necessary anti-rationalist or even silly.

Quote :

"Lay out the point you're trying to make for us plebes."

Look, shut the fuck up. If I treat somebody as ignorant for making a claim they know they can't support, on the basis of pretending to know something, it doesn't make me pretentious. Neither does knowing something.

Quote :

"Because math was based on Greeks who basically made it into their religion, Astrology is useful today?"

Of course not. Why would you even type something like this?

5/26/2010 11:26:12 AM

Quote :

"Early religions weren't "rational theories", they were simply dogma."

Where did that dogma come from? How was it formed?

5/26/2010 11:33:39 AM

Quote :

"Where did that dogma come from? How was it formed?"

People made it up on the basis of what they saw. This doesn't make it a rational process. Sorry. I'm done arguing with you. I already gave you a reading list to fix this problem of yours. I have no intention to let you string me along a protracted, multi-page, weak-ass semantic argument so you can argue that you got it 1% right or whatever will satisfy your shattered ego.

5/26/2010 11:37:26 AM

So they made an inference based on what they saw?

Oh, come on. After all that bluster, you can't possibly back down now.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 11:43:00 AM

Quote :

"The point is that the two are not necessarily polar opposites, they can be cross-applied, and they developed from EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF ACTIVITY. It doesn't mean modern religions are justified in believing silly shit, but it does mean that mysticism is not necessary anti-rationalist or even silly."

It sounds like all we're talking about is semantics. If you'd prefer, then instead of rationalism we'll call it observationalism or skepticism. I'm almost certain that when lazarus uses the word rationalism he's not talking about classical rationalism but rather modern Hume-based empiricism.

5/26/2010 11:43:56 AM

I will give McDanger license to bow out. He's clearly wreaked a vast amount of pwnage in the past couple pages.

5/26/2010 11:46:14 AM

He's certainly dropped a lot of names.

5/26/2010 11:47:15 AM

he's not just dropping names, son. He personally knows every one of those philosophers.

5/26/2010 11:51:47 AM

lazarus, was I incorrect regarding rationalism? It seems like McDanger is taking it overboard because of the use of the word rather than the intended meaning.

5/26/2010 11:52:56 AM

I'm basically done here, but since there still seems to be legitimate misunderstanding (rather than just grand-standing and empty chest-thumping), I'll post again.

Quote :

"It sounds like all we're talking about is semantics. If you'd prefer, then instead of rationalism we'll call it observationalism or skepticism. I'm almost certain that when lazarus uses the word rationalism he's not talking about classical rationalism but rather modern Hume-based empiricism."

It's not just semantics. It's ignorance. He doesn't know the history of the ideas, the development of the ideas, or the ideas. I might as well argue with somebody speaking Russian at this point. (I do not speak Russian.)

Mysticism is only anti-empirical under certain assumptions about empiricism and if you restrict it. It's only anti-rational if you restrict it, as well. History played out a certain way in certain parts of the world. You're using a restricted set to make a generalization, and then trying to pretend it generalizes across the board. I'm here to notify you that you're not right.

Quote :

"lazarus, was I incorrect regarding rationalism? It seems like McDanger is taking it overboard because of the use of the word rather than the intended meaning."

What do you imagine "rationalism" to mean?

5/26/2010 11:55:31 AM

man fuck them jews for trying to build that shit near something they caused to happen

5/26/2010 11:56:00 AM

Quote :

"lazarus, was I incorrect regarding rationalism? It seems like McDanger is taking it overboard because of the use of the word rather than the intended meaning."

Basically, yes, although I don't concede that I've somehow misused the term. He's the one using archaic definitions.

Quote :

"What do you imagine "rationalism" to mean?"

Websters:

Rationalism:

Quote :

"1 : reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth"

Reason:

Quote :

"2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways"

Infer:

Quote :

"1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises"

Next time, don't be such a douche.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2010 11:56:31 AM

What definition of empiricism or mysticism are you using where the two are not contradictory?

Definitions that disco_stu is using:

Empericism: actual knowledge about reality is only obtained through observation.
Mysticism: actual knowledge about reality can be obtained through sources which cannot be observed.
Rationalism: synonym for empiricism.

Like I said, it seems like these terms mean something different to you (and probably justifiably so given your knowledge of classics), but what it boils down to is semantics.

5/26/2010 12:03:02 PM

every goddamned sentence anyone uses boils down to semantics

that's why most of us try to communicate using a common set of definitions

unless we get face-pwn by a McDanger

then we fall back on invented or awkward definitions in order to boil everything down to semantics.

5/26/2010 12:08:30 PM

Quote :

"Empericism: actual knowledge about reality is only obtained through observation. Mysticism: actual knowledge about reality can be obtained through sources which cannot be observed. Rationalism: synonym for empiricism."

Mystics either believe that introspection or revelation can genuinely transfer knowledge, or they believe that introspection (or some other purely mental process) is in fact empirical. Most of mystical mathematics was empirical in flavor; Neo-Platonists STILL view math this way, and their ranks include some high-profile mathematicians from the 20th-21st centuries.

It partially depends on your view of math. If you think people are trying out different definitions/axioms to see what sorts of theorems to secure, then it's a trial/error endeavor that's extremely empirical in its mindset.

Empiricism is just the view that knowledge is derived from the senses. This has nothing to do with rationality; rationality is much broader and applies to mathematics (and other a priori fields) regardless of whether or not it's properly empirical. Even if mathemathical knowledge is derived from some special psychic ability or perception of humans, it's still rational.

"Rational" is obviously "acting with reason", but this is different than "acting with A reason". You have to define "reason", and it's a hefty concept with a lot of theory and history behind it that can't be brushed aside. What PRECISELY counts as rational is not remarkably clear; there is no broad consensus among mathematicians, philosophers, computer scientists, statisticians, logicians, or economists.

You can't just say "oh those silly mystics/religious people, they aren't acting with REASON! that's why they're stupid!" You have to have an idea what the fuck you mean by reason. You people are acting like this is a settled matter and all we have to do is apply some sort of "rational litmus test" to various concepts and see if they make it out. This simply boils down to what God (the user) does: pick shit you don't like and scream it's "irrational" without having a clue what you're doing.

[Edited on May 26, 2010 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2010 12:11:43 PM

McDanger is the one who launched himself into a brazen exercise in semantics here. Logical inferences based on observable facts would fall under any dictionary's primary definition of rationalism. And I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of them mentions fucking Xeno.

5/26/2010 12:16:37 PM

Quote :

"Logical inferences based on observable facts would fall under any dictionary's primary definition of rationalism."

The antecedents for any sort of "rational" inference based on observable facts have to be built into some theoretical framework or other. Even if what you said was right, you'd still be wrong about your original point; "logical inference" did not even exist until Aristotle, he was the first to invent syllogism.

Do you get that? Syllogism was an invention. It occurred literally centuries after the first records of dogmatic religion.

5/26/2010 12:21:35 PM

Quote :

"Rationalism: synonym for empiricism."

I promise I'm not trying to be an asshole when I say this, but at least read some enlightenment philosophy/science/math for the love of God. "Rationalism" and "empiricism" in this time period refer to diametrically-opposed positions.

5/26/2010 12:23:54 PM

McDanger how can you rely on historical records when it seems so obvious that early cavemen would be rational thinkers??


I mean, seriously, we exist in reality and conclusions about that reality should be based on observations and experiences in reality, not delusion.

5/26/2010 12:25:19 PM

The problem is that McDanger is using the philosophical definition of rationalism when we are using the practical definition:

the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

With reason defined as

: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact

Which is actually concurrent with empiricism in that the only valid explanations for things in reality are that which is observed in reality.

Before I start replacing rationalism with skepticism I just want to make sure that I can use that word without offending McDanger's philosophical sensibilities. Is there something I should know about ancient skeptics that would somehow make skepticism and mysticism cooperative?

5/26/2010 12:42:00 PM