An open mind that demands no evidence will let in an awful lot of rubbish.
This reminds me of the saying: It's good to be open-minded - but not so open-minded your brain falls out...
Edit: From the Announcements thread: This was already posted in the Video Discussion Forum, but I decided to re-post it here for all visitors to the home page to see.
New users, consider this "required viewing" before participating in debate. Such high standards of critical thinking are very much mandatory here.
Edited by Meq (02/19/1005:45 PM) Edit Reason: Added link to other thread
I can't tell you how many times I've talked with a Christian (without coming right out and saying I'm a Satanist) and said that, "while I don't believe, I don't entirely discount the possibility of God; however, without empirical evidence to support his supposed existence I remain unconvinced." I have been met with "oh, he's out there; my prayers have been answered." As if that was a definitive argument for the affirmation of his existence.
_________________________ The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.
"Open-mindedness"...!! One of my very least favorite phrases. I'm glad to see others share my sentiments, and are motivated to create a little presentation around the idea.
At least this vid gives people who get backed into conversational corners when trying to defend hard-core materialism something to remember at the last ditch. (That's not a sarcastic remark! I am really being sincere.)
People tend to forget that there's scarcely any way to prove anything on the typical internet discussion forum, anyway. If you demand proof from someone who would ultimately have to come to your house, have you come to his house, or meet with you somewhere to show you the proof--think for a moment: Do you REALLY need proof, when faced with the prospect of having to put the guest towels out for someone who's probably a little "eccentric" anyway? I would forego further argument, and have on numerous occasions, upon consideration of the "ultimate showdown" and its possible consequences. (That's why scientists usually try to do things in labs, where the equipment is insured...)
As well, it's usually pointless to provide a hard-core materialist with an experiment that he or she can "try at home" to test something that they classify as paranormal/supernatural (and therefore, not "real"). You know that even if it only takes a few hours total of experimentation, using stuff they already have or can obtain for less than $10, they're not gonna do it. They just want to keep arguing, basically, until you get sick of listening to them and either give in or make some sort of error that they can use against you.
A lot of the time I can (and will) say, "Hey, I'm not trying to get you to accept hearsay as fact! Calm down! Try this experiment where you live, in your town, just do this, this... (etc)"--and they won't even address that, they'll just go back to arguing like I didn't say a thing. (Many--not all, of course, but many--of those who argue for hard-core materialism are not in fact scientists and know little of science, but suppose that it makes them appear smarter to stand on the side of science in any argument where science is involved.)
There is really no way anybody can be "right" in the classic sense on the internet, unless in discussion of something that is already established and can easily be duplicated, such as that the world is round. There are still many people who do not believe that the world is round--personally, I dislike trying to argue with someone like that, but supposing I was so inclined, I would be able to say to that person, "No one on earth believes that the earth is flat, but in case that does not sway your thinking, please mark the place where you are standing and proceed in any direction you choose without changing course--you will find that if you keep going in the same direction, you will eventually return to the place you began."
If no such verification is available for either side of an argument, that in my opinion places the topic into the category of "idle discussion". Idle discussion is of course one of the fun things about the internet. Some people will get kind of excited, which can also be fun at times.
~~~ yours in Chaos, Scarlett
_________________________
"I can fling poo gooder than u"
This video was awesome. and I was pleased to see that the same guy who made it also had the genesis argument...that's the first time I've ever known anyone else to think of the genesis argument...
This video leans much more strongly towards (epistemological) empiricism than (metaphysical) materialism or physicalism.
The former is a theory of knowledge of the world being derived from objective experience and evidence. The latter is a claim about the nature of reality (that only matter and physical energy exist, not 'spirits', and consciousness has a physical basis). The two are often run together, but they are distinct ideas nevertheless.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hardcore materialism", but the upthrust of this video is: While to dogmatically assert that matter and energy are definitely all that exists might be a closed-minded approach; it is not closed-minded to ask for evidence and reasons FOR the existence of anything immaterial, supernatural, spiritual or otherwise; and without such evidence being available, to refrain for assenting to belief in such concepts (with the possibility of changing one's mind should evidence to the contrary accumulate).
Many people untrained in science and philosophy do take the former position as a kind of dogma. However, this is not how the latter position works, as it is not dogmatic, and to conflate the latter view with the former one is to commit the logical fallacy of a 'straw man'.
The distinction here is much like that between that of 'strong' and 'weak Atheism' (the latter which may overlap with agnosticism). A 'strong' Atheist asserts that there definitely is no god. A 'weak' Atheist in contrast merely abstains from giving his assent or belief to the proposition 'there exists a god or gods', on the grounds that he currently has no good reasons to do so. While 'strong' Atheism may be accused of being somewhat of a metaphysical dogma, as it makes assertions concerning gods, the latter position makes no such assertions and thus cannot rightly be considered dogmatic or closed-minded.
Although it is often important to make judgments about (for example) whether one considers a 'supernatural' realm to exist or not, it is important to note that all human knowledge is ultimately fallible, thus there is no need to take such judgments as a kind of absolute truth.
For a final example: I am aware of various claims concerning the Christian God. An alleged big person outside the universe who hates it when people come to the wrong conclusion about his existence - in fact, he hates it so much he is willing to barbecue them for all eternity.
I see no reason to positively accept this claim about such an entity. This doesn't mean I am closed-minded or prejudiced about the existence of such a being, more like I require some better reasons and evidence before I assent to a belief in his existence.
As such, I can be 'open-minded' about the claim of his alleged existence without simply taking a counter-dogma as fact, or falling into the trap of fearing hell or divine judgment without good reasons for accepting such beliefs.
Rather, I have moved beyond the need for such simple-minded dogma altogether, and choose an approach to reality based on thought, not blind faith.
Gareth, if you can't provide an actual response to posts, instead of this copy and paste shit (the pictures of weed in another thread, and now a fucking Beastie Boys video), you can take a hike.
Gareth, if you can't provide an actual response to posts, instead of this copy and paste shit (the pictures of weed in another thread, and now a fucking Beastie Boys video), you can take a hike.
Newfags stay in Satanism 101.
that isn't marijuana it's alternative smokable herb, you need to learn punctuation and spelling retard.
And you need to learn some manners. Your own punctuation skills are called into question when you can't even be bothered to capitalize the first letter of your sentence, nor use a period in place of a comma to break up your run on sentence. Not to mention, stooping to the level of calling someone a retard. Your profile says you're 28? And yet you act like you're 18.
I view open-mindedness much the way Lawrence Krauss said it. That being, an open-mind is based on forcing your beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality.
Nice video. What many of us believe to be common sense is often not for most.
Originally Posted By: Meq
A 'strong' atheist asserts that there definitely is no god. A 'weak' atheist in contrast merely abstains from giving his assent or belief to the proposition 'there exists a god or gods', on the grounds that he currently has no good reasons to do so.
I would just like to add that Atheism is the lack of a belief in God, not the belief that there is no God. You can guess at a lot of other things about an Atheist but the only thing you can safely assume is that they lack a belief in God.
Originally Posted By: Nemesis
Your profile says you're 28? And yet you act like you're 18.
I'm 18, and I can assure you that even my 12 year old sister has a higher maturity level than that of "Gareth."
Your profile says you're 28? And yet you act like you're 18.
I'm 18, and I can assure you that even my 12 year old sister has a higher maturity level than that of "Gareth."
I've no doubt of it! We've had some younger members here that have put people in their 30's to shame. I only used the age of 18 as a reference point. As you well know, there are plenty of moronic 18 year olds, just as there are exceptionally bright ones. The typical 18 year olds tend to give their more intelligent peers a bad rep.
I always like to be pleasantly surprised. It keeps life interesting!
I would just like to add that Atheism is the lack of a belief in God, not the belief that there is no God. You can guess at a lot of other things about an Atheist but the only thing you can safely assume is that they lack a belief in God.
I disagree. By definition, an Atheist (a-theos, "without a god") denies the existence of God. This is an absolute notion. On the contrary, an agnostic (a-gnosis, "absence of knowledge") cannot pronounce himself and simply "lacks" faith.
_________________________ La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte.
I disagree. By definition, an Atheist (a-theos, "without a god") denies the existence of God. This is an absolute notion. On the contrary, an agnostic (a-gnosis, "absence of knowledge") cannot pronounce himself and simply "lacks" faith.
(a-theos, "without a god.") means just that, without a God. If theism is to uphold belief in a deity, then a-theism is to not uphold belief in a deity. But if we can't even define our own terms then there is little to talk about. Having said that, I'll just cite a couple definitions...
On "Wiktionary" it defines Atheism as "commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is not a "belief" in itself but a way in which to classify "belief," or a lack thereof. For example, LaVeyan Satanism is an atheistic religion, as is Buddhism (save the few sects that claim that the Buddha was/is a divine being) because they both lack a belief in a God.
I think we can agree Merriam-Webster is a reliable source? Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée Atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know Date: 1869 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun
To add to what is stated above, if people cannot use words for their definition, then we are speaking jibberish and there is no hope for communication.
I think we can agree Merriam-Webster is a reliable source? Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée Atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know Date: 1869 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun
To add to what is stated above, if people cannot use words for their definition, then we are speaking jibberish and there is no hope for communication.
I should have precised my referring to the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française which is, I guess, another reliable source too.
_________________________ La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte.
I think we can agree Merriam-Webster is a reliable source? Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée Atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
I care more for the content of the definition than I do the source. Normally, I would demand a reliable source for facts, but definitions are not facts, as they are often up for debate. Clearly, this source of definitions has it's prejudices. Anyone who describes Atheism as a doctrine, or wickedness, clearly has no idea what they are talking about and clearly doesn't care. If Atheism is the lack of a belief in God, than I would define agnosticism as either the belief that God's existence is either equiprobable (50/50), (or as withheld belief due to a lack of evidence) or a question beyond our understanding, Temporary Agnostic in Practice (TAP) or Permanent Agnostic in Practice (PAP) respectively. That said, I guess I would say that all agnostics are atheists, and some atheists are agnostics.
Yes, the words uses "on the street" are different than definitions can be. Regarding the reference of Atheism and wickedness was in relation to its archaic use.
I care more for the content of the definition than I do the source. Normally, I would demand a reliable source for facts, but definitions are not facts, as they are often up for debate. Clearly, this source of definitions has it's prejudices. Anyone who describes atheism as a doctrine, or wickedness, clearly has no idea what they are talking about and clearly doesn't care. If atheism is the lack of a belief in God, than I would define agnosticism as either the belief that God's existence is either equiprobable (50/50), (or as withheld belief due to a lack of evidence) or a question beyond our understanding, Temporary Agnostic in Practice (TAP) or Permanent Agnostic in Practice (PAP) respectively. That said, I guess I would say that all agnostics are atheists, and some atheists are agnostics.
Words do not come from nowhere, they have origins, "roots". You can despise this idea because you are too lazy to learn but you cannot honestly pretend that all things are equivalent.
_________________________ La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte.
Should I even bother replying? Obviously many words only have one definition, but as I stated previously, many are up for debate. For example, your definition of a Christian may differ from a Christian's definition of a Christian. Likewise, your definition of an Atheist may differ from an Atheist's definition of an Atheist. This thread alone is proof of that. Too lazy to learn? That was low.
since i'm a newbie i clicked on your thread and watched that video but i already knew most of that info accept for the part at 7:25 i didn't know critical thinking was compatible with open mindedness and that it empowers it and i also didn't know that what u take and don't take into consideration is promoted by science. Thank you so much for indirectly helping me. :] HAIL SATAN!!!!!!
spiritualism and magick are not scientific by nature and therefore it makes no sense to apply a scientific standard. We should apply a rational standard I suppose though.
For example science believes in observable results that can always be repeated. What if I can make a result happen 60% of the time- it is real, but its not scientific because it isn't consistent enough. Psychology is not a "hard science" itself, not subjected to the scientific method, but is real. Philosophy isn't science either.
I'll probably piss off a bunch of people by saying this, but my opinion is, you can't get knowledge of reality through empirical means. Science is useful on a practical level, but in my humble opinion, it just doesn't work as a descriptor of reality in all its comprehensiveness. Everything is always schematized. Any given view is always embedded in a perspective. Objectivity, I simply do not trust anymore and consider it a clever fiction.
In conclusion, do not speak about your ghost(s) experiences, it won't lead you very far. I recognised myself a lot in that video, it made me laugh because it is truly a waste of time to talk about something you can't really prove. I am still going into houses where people want me to perform some sort of cleansing and I have to say that I saw much more than a shaking lamp. Still, I have no way to confirm with absolute conviction what I experienced.
Very informative video, I will try to remember and notice that pattern when I will discuss with someone.
Thanks for sharing.
_________________________
"You shall find your darkness stands on a thread of pinhole light"
