Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system! To begin posting Login or Sign Up.
April 24, 2014, 09:04:37 PM
Search:     Advanced search
204417 Posts in 9862 Topics by 17640 Members
Latest Member: Timothyo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold  (Read 1818 times)
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2014, 12:51:45 PM »

Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial,

Right. Because it doesn't present an argument that would represent evidence against a deeply held religious belief.

Quote
However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible.

First off, is there really a guy (Jesse D.) with a sword and a bible? That's sound comically cartoonish. If so, you just compared a guy with a sword and an unscientific ancient text written by primitives with a guy without a sword and with a modern scientific text.

Quote
And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.

Intra-scientific squabbles are preferable and probably unavoidable. It's part of the hard path to the truth. The attack on evolution is a real thing. It's not a debate between two scientific theories. If someone has a scientific alternative to it, it should be presented and up for discussion. Science IS debate. Dawkins and others are defending science itself when they defend evolution.
Logged

Ylisium
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*
Online Online


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2014, 02:31:03 PM »

Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial,

Right. Because it doesn't present an argument that would represent evidence against a deeply held religious belief.

Quote
However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible.

First off, is there really a guy (Jesse D.) with a sword and a bible? That's sound comically cartoonish. If so, you just compared a guy with a sword and an unscientific ancient text written by primitives with a guy without a sword and with a modern scientific text.

Quote
And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.

I probably should have used that TBN guy...whats his face, who does 1000 lb leg presses. Anyhow, I was using metaphor. And my point is to juxtapose debate and defense . As you said, science is a debate. Dawkins comes across as an ass and a fundamentalist. No different than a TBN. There's no functional debate being had, kinda just a bomb throwing session.

Quote
Intra-scientific squabbles are preferable and probably unavoidable. It's part of the hard path to the truth. The attack on evolution is a real thing. It's not a debate between two scientific theories. If someone has a scientific alternative to it, it should be presented and up for discussion. Science IS debate. Dawkins and others are defending science itself when they defend evolution.

Well, no. The attack on "m" theory was a real thing too. You're getting into the merit of the debate rather than the characteristics. Two different things.

I really did have a least liberty position, but I absolutely forgot it.

EDIT by Dale: I took the liberty of a quick editing (code only) for readability.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 04:43:34 PM by Dalebert » Logged
Archibald

Offline Offline


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2014, 10:26:11 AM »

First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money. That said, my line on what I would label "religion" is fairly unambiguous. I don't just mean really controversial opinions or bad science, loaded with bias (like a lot of global warming science), etc. I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence. Faith is never to be questioned. In fact, that are usually repercussions for questioning it, either by humans here and now or in some faith-based after life.

doesn't help.  I still fear you.  (And think that exhibiting a panicky fight or flight type response in text is completely appropriate regardless of Shaw and Brasky's preffered social conventions so don't be surprised if I get totally hostile when you continue to argue that you would be justified to use any sort of coercion whatsoever regarding people's faith.  

You don't have "faith" in science?  What word do you use?  Who the fuck are you to define that word for me and forbid me from using it?

What scientific basis do you have for the idea that man should be free from coercion?  Not wolves, or cattle.  But man, alone from all other members of the animal kingdom, have the right to life and liberty.   What is that if not a religious belief?  And what is to stop someone with infinite faith in science treating your religious belief in freedom like what it is and coercively prevented you from practicing your faith?  That ridiculous stupid religious belief that man is not morally equal to a rabbit.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 10:35:49 AM by Archibald » Logged
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2014, 11:33:12 AM »

doesn't help.  I still fear you.  (And think that exhibiting a panicky fight or flight type response in text is completely appropriate regardless of Shaw and Brasky's preffered social conventions so don't be surprised if I get totally hostile when you continue to argue that you would be justified to use any sort of coercion whatsoever regarding people's faith.

What? You actually quoted me saying that I don't believe in doing that. Here, I'll re-quote what you quoted me saying before you claimed in a panic (your words) that I stated I don't respect your religious rights.

First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money.

You don't have "faith" in science?  What word do you use?  Who the fuck are you to define that word for me and forbid me from using it?

Science had to prove itself to me and it has to continue to prove itself to me every day. In the past, I've lost trust in old scientific methods when I was presented with better ones and I will do it again if someone makes a good case. Michael Crichton's State of Fear had that effect on me. He made me hope that his ideas for removing bias from scientific methods would become mainstream.

Quote
What scientific basis do you have for the idea that man should be free from coercion?  Not wolves, or cattle.  But man, alone from all other members of the animal kingdom, have the right to life and liberty.   What is that if not a religious belief?

Is that a religious view for you? It's not for me. Case in point--I had already added a subject to topics for the next Flaming Freedom to question whether freedom (from coercion) is the penultimate value. You know what inspired me to add it? I've spent half the week cat wranglin' to put medicine in my cat's ear. She's... not a fan of this process, to put it lightly. But I'm confident that she wants her ear to stop hurting and that she doesn't know that what I'm doing is helping. I'm smarter than her to an exponential degree. If I had an illness that was making me miserable and would likely get worse and that humans couldn't cure (maybe not even diagnose) but some super-advanced alien race with brains 100 times more advanced than ours did have a cure, I would hope that they would abduct me, by force if necessary, and apply the cure for my own good.

But government is made up of other humans with brains just like mine. Freedom is much closer to the scientific method. Let lots of people try different things. Let's test all these theories out with open minds and let's see what works best. We're not allowed to do that by government. Government is much like religion, fixated on tired old beliefs despite any evidence to the contrary, and stuck in their old ways.

And what is to stop someone with infinite faith in science treating your religious belief in freedom like what it is and coercively prevented you from practicing your faith?

Clearly there are people preventing me from practicing my non-religious belief in freedom. We're not free. So now that the premise has been revised, what's your point? If someone is powerful and willing to use violence, all rational discussion becomes irrelevant. They will get their way.

I'm bigger and smarter than my cat and willing to use force (short of hurting her) to hold her still and shove a little plastic tube into her ear canal and squirt crap in there for her own good. At least I'm fairly confident it's for her own good. I hope I'm right.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 02:09:52 PM by dalebert » Logged

dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2014, 11:38:48 AM »

Is that a religious view for you? It's not for me.

Disclaimer: I think it used to be, but I try not to be stuck in my old ways of thinking. I like to think that I'm getting smarter with age and experience. If you dig up statements I made even a few years ago, I might very well sound somewhat religious about freedom.
Logged

Ylisium
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*
Online Online


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2014, 01:50:03 PM »

I have a hard time letting go of the concept of having one universal protector of rights that's unbiased and acts only in the interest in defending rights. e.g. Police...nothing like what we have today, but someone to look into murders, theft and so forth.

I really don't know where I sit on this.
Logged
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2014, 02:24:45 PM »

I have a hard time letting go of the concept of having one universal protector of rights that's unbiased and acts only in the interest in defending rights. e.g. Police...nothing like what we have today, but someone to look into murders, theft and so forth.

That feeling is completely relatable. It's desire-driven rather than reality driven. Reality isn't subservient to our needs. If I need food, that's is not proof for the existence of any edible food within my reach. If I have an advanced form of cancer, I need a cure. The need for a cure is not evidence that the cure currently (or ever) exists. We undoubtedly need an after life. Otherwise we will die! That need has no bearing on whether such a thing exists.
Logged

dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2014, 04:58:15 PM »

Logged

Ylisium
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*
Online Online


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2014, 01:20:01 AM »




This happens to me often. My mother and I will have be having a wonderful conversation, especially about the state of the US and when I think I'm making progress, I hear, "Were God's people, he's not giving up on this nation...promises, plan etc."

Then I just get pissed because it's the functional equivalent of a three year old plugging her hears with her fingers shouting, "I can't hear you la la la la..."

It makes me want to shove my head through a mirror while licking the inside of a battery.
Logged
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2014, 09:26:37 AM »

It makes me want to shove my head through a mirror while licking the inside of a battery.

Really? It makes me want to knock 'em really hard against the side of the head and see if I can get the gears spinning again. It works for the Fonz.

But I don't.
Logged

ReasonableVoice
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*
Offline Offline


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2014, 10:42:11 PM »

I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence.
Regardless of adherents using the word "faith", many adherents rely upon "faith" for things.

For example, the "nonexistence of God" is a thing and that thing relies upon faith for the adherents of that thing.

Regardless of what Atheists say, the "nonexistence of God" can NOT be proven (science shows that),
thus adherents of atheism are left with "faith" that "nonexistence of God" is true.

And if an atheist considers adherence to atheism to be a good and necessary thing,
that connotes that faith is also considered to be a good and necessary thing.

Logged
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2014, 12:39:53 AM »

Regardless of what Atheists say, the "nonexistence of God" can NOT be proven (science shows that),

Of course, because you can't prove the nonexistence of anything--not Jehova, not Jesus, not Zeus, not the tooth fairy, not flying purple people-eaters, not the blonde genie from I Dream of Jeanie. There could be blonde wish-granting genies on a planet billions of light-years away from the furthest point in space we could ever reach with the most advanced space vessels, but I don't believe in them. I'm not claiming science proves they don't exist; only that they're a ridiculous concept and astronomically unlikely based on everything I know. That's why the burden of proof is on someone trying to claim the existence of something and not on the disbeliever (since proving the nonexistence of something is impossible).
Logged

Temper
FTL AMPlifier Platinum
*
Offline Offline



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2014, 01:26:55 AM »

Of course, because you can't prove the nonexistence of anything

I am not so sure of this, I can prove there is not a heterosexual version of Dalebert. For there can be only one Dalebert, and he is self proclaimed homosexual.

In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.

In other words, our interpretation of such a thing will not cover the actual concept.

Like it is funny that god is usually portrayed as a man..
Logged
dalebert
Blasphemor
FTL Creative Team
*****
Offline Offline



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2014, 10:41:01 AM »

I am not so sure of this, I can prove there is not a heterosexual version of Dalebert. For there can be only one Dalebert, and he is self proclaimed homosexual.

But I exist and I'm right here. That's a case being made about the state of something that's right here. The existence of me is not the dispute. That might make for a fun thread though.  Cool

Quote
In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.

You're back to arguing about the state of something; not whether it actually exists. That's not a particularly meaningful thing to me. "We can't possibly understand God" is a statement that a lot of believers will agree with you on. It's the justification for saying "It's God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways". I agree, however, that you could argue that a specific notion of something posited to exist in a specific state might be paradoxical. In that case, you can argue that it's not possible to exist in the state described, and that wouldn't be a scientific argument but rather a logic argument.

Quote
Like it is funny that god is usually portrayed as a man..

Yes.  Laughing
Logged

Temper
FTL AMPlifier Platinum
*
Offline Offline



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2014, 10:58:05 AM »


But I exist and I'm right here. That's a case being made about the state of something that's right here. The existence of me is not the dispute. That might make for a fun thread though.  Cool


Yes you exist bit not in the configuration where you are straight. And if there was then it would not be you.

Quote
In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.

You're back to arguing about the state of something; not whether it actually exists. That's not a particularly meaningful thing to me. "We can't possibly understand God" is a statement that a lot of believers will agree with you on. It's the justification for saying "It's God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways". I agree, however, that you could argue that a specific notion of something posited to exist in a specific state might be paradoxical. In that case, you can argue that it's not possible to exist in the state described, and that wouldn't be a scientific argument but rather a logic argument.

My point is if you can't define such a thing then even if later you had all knowledge for everything for all time and wanted to say "see there was/wasn't a god." You couldn't because what you didn't understand changes the nature of the thing. Ultimately, you are saying that anything close enough would be confirmation. So the star trek movie where they get stuck on a planet with "a god" wanting the ship to get out.. Is that god? Would you then point to that thing and proclaim it was what you were taking about? Or would you be a fool like Spock's brother?

Like imagine for a second god arrived, he is the biggest fag (no offense i mean flamboyant gay) ever.. Is that the god in the Bible that the Bible beaters are talking about with the homosexuality is a sin shit? Or do you conclude their god never existed?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:07:21 AM by Temper » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.209 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.041s, 2q)