How did Ian........

[Turd Ferguson]

I think atheists and religious people alike just have the need to feel secure in a belief, either one way or the other.......... whereas us agnostics just say "eh, who fuckin cares?...... maybe maybe not, maybe I'll find out when I die.... maybe, maybe not"

[Cognitive Dissident]

If objectivism had an antichrist, it seems to me he'd be pushing the Theory of Forms.  Any concept that what's most important is the stuff you can't sense sounds fishy to me.

Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence.

Reasonable is the key word there.  Certainly, scientists can suggest that a star has planets because it "wobbles."  This is reason (and can be wrong, which many science types often ignore.)  "Ghosts exists exist because I heard of someone who had a scary experience" is not reason (and is usually complete bullshit.)

As Rillion seems to imply, those who would have you trust the "mystic" typically want you to trust it over the objective, verifiable truth.  This is where the obvious tiebreaker comes in.

[dalebert]

I think atheists and religious people alike just have the need to feel secure in a belief, either one way or the other.......... whereas us agnostics just say "eh, who fuckin cares?...... maybe maybe not, maybe I'll find out when I die.... maybe, maybe not"

I think that expresses a certain amount of personal security.  It takes a secure person to be able to say "I don't know" and be okay with that.  Sometimes it's the most reasonable answer.  There's a LOT that I just don't know and I would feel arrogant and close-minded to try to proclaim otherwise.  When you claim to know, you stop looking for answers.

[BonerJoe]

I have experienced things that can't be explained by science.. I know they happened, they weren't a dream or the result of mental illness. I am willing to believe those events are part undiscovered universal physics properties behind it, and I'm willing to believe it has "spiritual" qualities.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I have experienced things that can't be explained by science.. I know they happened, they weren't a dream or the result of mental illness. I am willing to believe those events are part undiscovered universal physics properties behind it, and I'm willing to believe it has "spiritual" qualities.

You're welcomed to, but we can't (reasonably) take your word for it, because it's not scientifically repeatable, or it would be science.

[BonerJoe]

I have experienced things that can't be explained by science.. I know they happened, they weren't a dream or the result of mental illness. I am willing to believe those events are part undiscovered universal physics properties behind it, and I'm willing to believe it has "spiritual" qualities.

You're welcomed to, but we can't (reasonably) take your word for it, because it's not scientifically repeatable, or it would be science.

Exactly. All you can do is take my word for it. It's unprovable, but I know it happened. Therefore, to say that something doesn't exist because it isn't science isn't compatible with my brain meat interface.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I have experienced things that can't be explained by science.. I know they happened, they weren't a dream or the result of mental illness. I am willing to believe those events are part undiscovered universal physics properties behind it, and I'm willing to believe it has "spiritual" qualities.

You're welcomed to, but we can't (reasonably) take your word for it, because it's not scientifically repeatable, or it would be science.

Exactly. All you can do is take my word for it. It's unprovable, but I know it happened. Therefore, to say that something doesn't exist because it isn't science isn't compatible with my brain meat interface.

It's not that you can't be correct.  Could be.  It's that I cannot accept it as true.  This is more or less along the lines of "Video or it didn't happen!" (the latter being less formal.)

[Turd Ferguson]

I think atheists and religious people alike just have the need to feel secure in a belief, either one way or the other.......... whereas us agnostics just say "eh, who fuckin cares?...... maybe maybe not, maybe I'll find out when I die.... maybe, maybe not"

I think that expresses a certain amount of personal security.  It takes a secure person to be able to say "I don't know" and be okay with that.  Sometimes it's the most reasonable answer.  There's a LOT that I just don't know and I would feel arrogant and close-minded to try to proclaim otherwise.  When you claim to know, you stop looking for answers.

right on

To question existence just seems like a royal waste of time to me. Im too busy enjoying the things I can see, feel, hear, taste, smell and eat to sit around wondering about their ultimate meaning in the grand scheme of all things. If there is a god and he wanted us to know the ultimate meaning of life and creation, I think he would have laid it all out in front of us like a kids story book with lots of pictures, detailing every decision so that a child could understand it, and the fact that he doesnt, assuming there is/was a god, tells me he doesnt want us to know. So, if he doesnt want us to crack his code, what makes us think we could do it against his wishes. HE'S GOD FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! WE CANT PULL ONE OVER ON HIM!!!

On the other hand, if there is no god, theres no point in wasting your life trying to figure out what happened before recorded history either.

Im here to enjoy life to the fullest possible extent. Im not here to question it.

Your life remains the same in either case.

Enjoy fuckers!!!

[gibson042]

I see a messy universe that started in a state of chaos and is generally moving toward something orderly and I understand how and why that's happening.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but would that orderly state be heat death or infinite divergence... and why?

I know they happened, they weren't a dream or the result of mental illness.

How would you know? Spiritual experiences can be generated almost on-demand.

[BonerJoe]

How would you know? Spiritual experiences can be generated almost on-demand.

Never said they had anything to do with spirituality. More like intuition.

[gibson042]

That's not the point. How can you rely on only your brain to conclude that something admittedly weird was not taking place entirely within your brain?

[BonerJoe]

That's not the point. How can you rely on only your brain to conclude that something admittedly weird was not taking place entirely within your brain?

Because then this entire existence only exists in my brain.

[anarchir]

If objectivism had an antichrist, it seems to me he'd be pushing the Theory of Forms.  Any concept that what's most important is the stuff you can't sense sounds fishy to me.

Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence.  The forms are likened to objects that are casting shadows.  You can see the shadows and you can come to a reasonable conclusion about what's casting the shadows.  If you saw the shadow of a bear on a cave wall, heard the bear roar, heard someone screaming, then the next day found a dead body with maul marks like a bear, it would be reasonable to conclude there was probably a bear even though you never sensed it directly.

I'm waaay behind on reading this thread, but those examples there are are examples of experiencing things directly.

[anarchir]

I've had a similar experience to BJ's. Except I was on Salvia at the time. It changed the way I look at the world around me for the better, but like I said, it was the drugs.

[TheHx]

LOL @ all the Ian haters on this board.