Fun with Christian wackos...

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:03

Lavabug knows.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:05

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Teignub"]i do know what it is but apparently you dont.

[/quote]

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have such a hard time explaining it in simple, comprehensible terms.[/quote]

hows this?

Collective unconscious, sometimes known as collective subconscious, is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is a part of the unconscious mind, shared by a society, humanity and all life forms, that is the product of ancestral experience and contains such concepts as science, religion, and morality. While Freud did not distinguish between an "individual psychology" and a "collective psychology", Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal subconscious particular to each human being. The collective unconscious is also known as "a reservoir of the experiences of our species."

In the "Definitions" chapter of Jung's seminal work Psychological Types, under the definition of "collective" Jung references representations collectives, a term coined by Levy-Bruhl in his 1910 book How Natives Think. Jung says this is what he describes as the collective unconscious. Freud, on the other hand, did not accept the idea of a collective unconscious.

The eight circuits of the human nervous system

Dr. Timothy Leary

The 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, proposed by psychologist Timothy Leary (after he was expelled from Harvard for violating most standards of ethics, experimental protocol, and basic scientific impartiality?), describes eight levels of function of human consciousness. The lower four, the larval circuits, deal with normal psychology, while the upper four, the stellar circuits, deal with “psychic”, “mystical”, and “enlightened” states of mind and with psychedelics. Association of this model with drug use has earned it some notoriety.

As one grows up from infancy, the various circuits are activated and begin to function, as described by Jean Piaget. The eight levels are associated with eight basic loser/winner scripts prepared by Dr. John Lilly.

Robert Anton Wilson, in his book Prometheus Rising, uses an amalgam of various approaches such as the 8-Circuit model of consciousness, quantum mechanics, relativity, Gurdjieff’s self-observation exercises, Alfred Korzybski’s general semantics etc. Leary also sought to amalgamate elements such as the I-Ching, the Kabbalah, Yoga, the Law of Octaves etc. into a single framework. Angel Tech by Antero señor alberto deals in greater detail with the upper circuits.

In this model, the eight levels of Consciousness are held to exist in every individual. What separates an individual from another is the degree of expression or latency of these circuits. Some thinkers have also criticized the hierarchical arrangement of these circuits as being indicative of the religious indoctrinatation, suggesting the superiority of one circuit over the other. Supporters argue that the circuits represent the simultaneous existing states of consciousness that work together as a dynamic whole. That said, it is evident that an under-utilized “lower” circuit hinders the complete expression of a “higher” circuit. It would thus become necessary to fully experience, integrate and embody the survival circuits, in order to withstand the shock that accompanies the activation of the post-survival circuits.

One observation based on this model is on “entities” such as the angels, extraterrestrials, deities etc. According to one school of thought, these entities reported by Circuit 8 visionaries are members of races already evolved to this level. But Leary and Sarfatti also suggest that they are ourselves in the future.

Leary claimed that this model explained, among other things, the social conflict in the 1960s, where the mainstream, said to be those with circuit 4 active and characterized as tribal moralists by Leary, clashed with the counter-culturists, said to be those with circuit 5 active and characterized as individualists and hedonists.

Leary's first book on the subject, Neurologic, only included seven circuits when published in 1973. Exo-Psychology , published in 1977, expanded the number of circuits to eight and clarified the subject, and it has was republished revised by Timothy Leary with additional material in 1989 under the title Info-Psychology (New Falcon Publishing).

The Eight Circuits

Note: The names for the circuits used by Dr. Timothy Leary are shown first and the names for the circuits used by Robert Anton Wilson are shown in parentheses

(they both used the same names for the first, second, and fifth circuits). After the name of the circuit, the name that was used by Dr. Timothy Leary to describe the level of consciousness that is activated by that circuit is shown in parentheses.

1. The Biosurvival Circuit (Consciousness)

Imprinted in infancy, concerned with suckling, nourishment, cuddling, bio-security etc. The imprinting of this circuit sets up the basic attitude of trust or suspicion which will last for life. First activated when a human being is born, and programs perception onto an either-or grid, divided into nurturing-helpful and noxious-dangerous (approach/accept vs. flight/flee). Leary thinks that this circuit is stimulated in adults by opioid drugs. This circuit is said to have appeared in the earliest evolution of invertebrate brain. This circuit begins with 1 spatial dimension, forward/back.

Winner Script: I will live forever, or die trying Loser Script: I don’t know how to defend myself.

2. The Emotional-Territorial Circuit (Ego)

Imprinted in the toddling stage, concerned with emotions, domination and submission strategies, territory etc. The first imprint on this circuit identifies the stimuli which will automatically trigger dominant, aggressive behavior or submissive, co-operative behavior. This circuit is activated with abundant quantities of alcohol. This circuit appeared first in territorial vertebrate animals. This circuit introduces a 2nd dimension; up/down.

Winner Script: I'm better than all of you and I'll fight to prove it Loser Script: They all intimidate me.

3. The Symbolic (Semantic Dexterity) Circuit (Rational Mind)

Imprinted by human artifacts and symbol systems. Concerned with handling the environment, invention, calculation, prediction, building a “map” of the universe etc. It is associated with physical dexterity and Caffeine, speed, cocaine and a high protein diet activate this circuit. This circuit supposedly appeared first when hominids started differentiating from the rest of the primates.

4. The Domestic (Socio-Sexual) Circuit (Adult Personality)

Imprinted by the first orgasm-mating experiences and tribal “morals”. Concerned with sexual pleasure, (instead of sexual reproduction) local definitions of “moral” and “immoral”, reproduction, nurture of the young etc. This circuit is basically concerned with operating within social networks and the transmission of culture across time. This circuit is said to have first appeared with the development of tribes.

5. The Neurosomatic Circuit (Zen Mind)

Concerned with neurological-somatic feedbacks, feeling high, somatic reprogramming etc. The fifth circuit, according to Leary, is consciousness of the body. There is a marked shift from linear visual space to an all-encompassing aesthetic sensory space. A hedonic turn-on occurs, a rapturous amusement, a detachment from the previously compulsive mechanism of the first four circuits. This circuit is stimulated by ecstatic experiences via physiological effects of marijuana and MDMA, yoga, tantra (Leary's name for tantra was hedonic engineering), Zen meditation and free fall. Leary describes that this circuit first appeared in the upper classes with the development of leisure-class civilizations around 2000 BC.

6. The Neuroelectric (Metaprogramming) Circuit (Psionic Mind)

Concerned with re-imprinting and re-programming all earlier circuits, relativity of “realities” perceived, cybernetic consciousness, so-called PSI/magical powers, etc. The sixth circuit consists of the nervous system becoming aware of itself. Leary says this circuit enables telepathic communication and associates it with peyote, psilocybin, MDA and yage, as well as being associated with computer games. This circuit is traced by Leary back to 500 BC and he associates it with the Silk Road.

7. The Neurogenetic (Morphogenetic) Circuit (Buddha Mind)

Concerned with evolutionary consciousness (past and future), DNA-RNA-brain feedbacks, Jung’s “Collective unconscious” etc. The first to achieve this mutation spoke of “memories of past lives”, “reincarnation”, “immortality” etc. This circuit is stimulated by LSD, Raja Yoga etc. The circuit first appeared among the Hindus in the early first millennium and later reappeared among the Sufi sects.

8. The Psychoatomic (Quantum Non-Local) Circuit (Overmind)

Concerned with quantum consciousness, non-local awareness (information from beyond ordinary space-time awareness which is limited by the speed of light), illumination, out-of-body experiences, astral projection, contact with alien entities (which does not necessarily specifically refer to only materially based creatures from outer space, but rather all beings, including e.g. angels) or with a galactic Overmind etc. Some of the ways this circuit can get activated are the awakening of kundalini, shock, near-death experience etc. This circuit has even been compared to the Buddhist concept of Indra's net from the Avatamsaka Sutra. Leary associated large doses of LSD (1,000 mcg), Ketamine and DMT with this circuit.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:08

[quote name="Lavabug"]"Spirituality" I'm sure you will say is exempt from experimental demonstration. To me that just means its nonsense.[/quote]

yes i agree and as i said, spirituality is the wrong term. Heightened Consciousness is a more accurate one, although not completely accurate, and it can be demonstrated experimentally via studying brainwaves and other neurological factors such as chemical release.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:10

I'm really not going to read all of that but

[quote name="Teignub"]

Concerned with quantum consciousness, non-local awareness (information from beyond ordinary space-time awareness which is limited by the speed of light)[/quote]

You call this comprehensible? What does it mean?

What a disgraceful use of language.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:12

what isnt comprehensible about that? do you not understand? non-locality is discussed enormously in quantum mechanics

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:14

Sounds pretty post-modern to me.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:15

Maybe you could explain what non-locality in quantum mechanics is? And how it has any remote relevance to the "spirituality"?

You're sounding more like NDMG with every post.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:32

[quote name="Johnny"]Sounds pretty post-modern to me.[/quote]

and your point?

[quote name="Lavabug"]Maybe you could explain what non-locality in quantum mechanics is? And how it has any remote relevance to the "spirituality"?

You're sounding more like NDMG with every post.[/quote]

maybe you could look it up for yourself. again i said spirituality is not an accurate term. and it has to do with my original point because heightened consciousness is the core element behind religion (which does no harm) and it is obscured by all the bullshit that comes along with organized religions, and people do not distinguish between the two (which does harm), and thus use "religion" as an excuse to get away with things they shouldnt, which was an analogy of how people lump all sciences (social, physical, and other) into the general category of "science" (which does harm), and thus use science as an excuse to get away with things they shouldnt, and are ignoring the core sciences and the core elements of those sciences (which do no harm).

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 02:39

my point of bringing that up in the first place was to say as a skeptic and/or objective scientist, you shouldnt fully trust or believe in anything that you hear/see/read without experiencing it first hand, including science, and that there is such a thing as scientific fundamentalism, or non-objective science, which i obviously agree is not even close to being as physically harmful to people as religious fundamentalism, but it is still just as bad for your mind to believe things that you dont really know are true or have never experienced.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 13 Oct 2009, 03:18

Sounds pretty post-modern to me.

and your point?

Maybe you could explain what non-locality in quantum mechanics is? And how it has any remote relevance to the "spirituality"?

You're sounding more like NDMG with every post.

maybe you could look it up for yourself.

Maybe you could stop pretending, it's okay. You can't put it in your own words because you haven't got a clue what it means, just like myself. And I dare say you don't have a significantly better grasp of the English language than me.

Concerned with neurological-somatic feedbacks, feeling high, somatic reprogramming etc.

I mean seriously, the author takes his readers as fools.

which i obviously agree is not even close to being as physically harmful to people as religious fundamentalism, but it is still just as bad for your mind to believe things that you dont really know are true or have never experienced.

Why is it bad for the mind to hold evidence in high regard? Doing so would be scientific fundamentalism under your criteria, a label I find silly but that I will gladly adhere to if it means relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge.

I guess my scientific fundamentalism just makes me prejudiced against things that aren't real.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 03:44

you really must insist so much? ok fine. non-locality is one object directly affecting or influencing another object at a distance. Which is in opposition to the Principle of Locality which states that an object can only be directly affected by its immediate surroundings. this can happen because matter and/or information can travel faster than the speed of light. and heres a quote from someone you respect to show I am not full of shit:

"…there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed.

– Richard Feynman"

etymology and definitions do not translate to how things are. sure science can be and should be used as a tool to allow one to be skeptical about certain issues, but thats not how all people use it, and some believe in science, or rather what science claims to know, without knowing anything about it or experiencing it directly.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 03:53

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Teignub"]which i obviously agree is not even close to being as physically harmful to people as religious fundamentalism, but it is still just as bad for your mind to believe things that you dont really know are true or have never experienced.[/quote]

Why is it bad for the mind to hold evidence in high regard? Doing so would be scientific fundamentalism under your criteria, a label I find silly but that I will gladly adhere to if it means relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge.

I guess my scientific fundamentalism just makes me prejudiced against things that aren't real.[/quote]

no thats not what i mean. scientific fundamentalism by my criteria is non-objective science. it means not relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge. also known as pseudo-science. a scientific fundamentalist would be someone who believes everything a scientist, or science, tells them just because he/she is a scientist, or just because its science. many accepted "scientific facts" have been disproved over the years. yes, those "facts" were based off biased scientific methods, but thats my point.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:06

"no thats not what i mean. scientific fundamentalism by my criteria is non-objective science. it means not relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge. also known as pseudo-science. a scientific fundamentalist would be someone who believes everything a scientist, or science, tells them just because he/she is a scientist, or just because its science. many accepted "scientific facts" have been disproved over the years. yes, those "facts" were based off biased scientific methods, but thats my point."

You have more than one different definition of "scientific fundamentalism" there. I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously people who meet those criteria are misguided. They're not being scientific. Calling them scientific fundamentalists is kind of weird.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:17

yes sorry i shouldve been more clear. think of it as:

"scientific fundamentalism by my criteria is non-objective science. it means not relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge. also known as pseudo-science." -would be the scientific fundamentalist who is a "scientist," who is actually doing the biased studying/preaching, which would be the equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist Priest or Bishop or whatever.

"a scientific fundamentalist would be someone who believes everything a scientist, or science, tells them just because he/she is a scientist, or just because its science." -would be the follower of the above, which would be the equivalent of your run-of-the-mill, brainwashed, church going Christian fundamentalist.

does that make sense?

i mainly use the term as a way to draw similarities between science and religion because people always bash on religion and praise science without really thinking critically about either. and ya it is kind of weird. but so am i.

and yes they arent being scientific but they are claiming they are and people believe them. Which is what i think about religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalists are misguided, and in my opinion, are not being religious, but they claim they are and people believe them.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:34

So people who claim to be scientists, who claim to be evidence-based, rational people. . but aren't. Either out of ignorance, stupidity, or maliciousness. You're comparing these people to religious people?

Well of course. They're exactly like religious people. Religion is just one example of irrationality.

I don't think scientific fundamentalism is a good term for them though. They're just not scientists. You could call them pseudo-scientists or something.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:45

well, yes, kind of. i would just add that i differentiate between religious fundamentalists, who i think are not religious, and truly religious people, who are few and far between, and really have nothing in common with organized religions of any sort outside of the lost or obscured core elements, which are love, happiness, respect, and an intimate connection with Earth.

but now where just debating semantics.

and ya its probably not the best term, but it works when trying to point out the commonalities of so called "religion" and so called "science" to some people because the idea of religious fundamentalism is well known in mainstream consciousness.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:50

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Noyka"]

I'm not joking, they're both answering questions for people there's not a lot of difference. I don't agree with the god answer but to them it is reasoning it is right and it is just and all that jazz. I said I was done attempting to argue/debate for a while because I don't think people are getting I don't neccessarily disagree with the bulk of what either of you are saying. I am just trying to say understand them, don't get all holier than thou

[/quote]

What you are doing is bending over backwards and saying it's ok to be ignorant. I bet you aren't equally appeasing towards Muslims who practice female genital mutilation when they try to justify the procedure because it casts out demons or whatever nonsensical reason they have to do that.

Do religious people keep creationism to themselves? No, they try to force it on children to raise a new generation of ignoramuses that some day will have electoral power, and their decisions WILL affect you and me. That and the fact that I believe everyone has the right to a proper education is what really makes me drop any respect for any "alternative science". You'll see a far more immediate effect with Jehova's witnesses and blood transfusions, Catholics and condoms in the third world, Muslims and martyrdom.

People are going to die and have miserable lives because no one is going to call them out on their ignorance, and by being "respectful"(neglectful), we're encouraging this.

[quote name="Noyka"]

What I find absolutely mind numbing is people who are so willing to write them off instead of you know actually trying to be human.

[/quote]

I didn't know being accepting of other people's ignorance, aversion of reason, and intellectual laziness was a part of being human and if it is, it's definitely not one of humanity's virtues.[/quote]

Most christians I know believe god caused evolution. Creationism is taught in some classes (private schools) already, I don't agree with that. You missed my point to them it is reasoning, it's called having compassion for them. Compassion would enable you to get your point across a hell of a lot better. The most dangerous enemy is someone who understands you and is able to slowly change you through reason. I've been able to reason with people in debates because I don't get all holier than thou, I don't think they changed their minds but they did hear me out. That's a step in the right direction right?

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:54

"to them it is reasoning"

Reasoning is either valid or invalid. People can be just wrong.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 13 Oct 2009, 04:55

and i just wanted to add that although this has been a spirited, and at times heated, debate, its all in good fun and i harbor no ill feelings towards anyone. i know this is probably a given but apparently its not (im looking at you, Shitty debacle). in fact i enjoy this kind of questioning as it helps me flesh out what im thinking into a simpler, more comprehensible statement (or statements).

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 13 Oct 2009, 05:11

[quote name="Teignub"]yes sorry i shouldve been more clear. think of it as:

"scientific fundamentalism by my criteria is non-objective science. it means not relying strictly on objective procedures to obtain knowledge. also known as pseudo-science." -would be the scientific fundamentalist who is a "scientist," who is actually doing the biased studying/preaching, which would be the equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist Priest or Bishop or whatever.

"a scientific fundamentalist would be someone who believes everything a scientist, or science, tells them just because he/she is a scientist, or just because its science." -would be the follower of the above, which would be the equivalent of your run-of-the-mill, brainwashed, church going Christian fundamentalist.

does that make sense?

i mainly use the term as a way to draw similarities between science and religion because people always bash on religion and praise science without really thinking critically about either. and ya it is kind of weird. but so am i.

and yes they arent being scientific but they are claiming they are and people believe them. Which is what i think about religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalists are misguided, and in my opinion, are not being religious, but they claim they are and people believe them.[/quote]

I agree with this. Most "hardcore" atheists it seems are no better than evangelical christians. Same shitheads, different ideology.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 13 Oct 2009, 09:06

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Teignub"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]

I think there's a clear difference between anthropology(social science) and the science we're talking about here(physics, chemistry, biology).[/quote]

true but some people dont think that and to deny that many terrible things have happened "in the name of science" is silly.[/quote]

List some other terrible things that have happened in the name of science.[/quote]

Okay, let's see. One, right off the top of my head: Dr. Mengele's experiments on human twins during the Holocaust.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 13 Oct 2009, 11:30

racial hatred motivated more than scientifically motivated.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 13 Oct 2009, 13:03

No hard feelings between us Teignub. But I have decided to not bother replying about that essay or your definition of scientific fundamentalism anymore, because I honestly don't enjoy slashing through semantics and symbolism just to get your point, I prefer concision.

I don't think Mengele contributed anything to science, he was just a sadist with training in medicine. And anything he did was inspired by eugenics not medicine, which is not a science.

If you bring up examples of cruelty to animals for biological/medical research I'll agree though, but I think most people will accept that the benefits far outweigh the damage done to animals.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 13 Oct 2009, 15:03

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]racial hatred motivated more than scientifically motivated.[/quote]

Have you done any research on Mengele? His whole experimental process revolved around finding out everything he possibly could about heredity. He tried to find out if twins could feel each others' sensations, etc. Yes, his experiments were enabled by the conditions created during that era, but his motivation had very little to do with actually exterminating the Jewish race. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, Mengele was actually noted as having treated his subjects with kindness until he began to actually experiment on them.

[quote name="Lavabug"]I don't think Mengele contributed anything to science, he was just a sadist with training in medicine. And anything he did was inspired by eugenics not medicine, which is not a science.

[/quote]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think? If I understand correctly, his experimentation was an extention of previous work in heredity. He obviously would have argued that it would benefit mankind to know the things he might have discovered. Just because we disagree with his perspective doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist.

I hope you're not getting all your information on this from the Slayer song.

zim · Post by **zim** » 13 Oct 2009, 15:22

FEEDING ON THE SCREAMS OF THE MUTANTS HE'S CREATING

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 13 Oct 2009, 15:28

PATHETIC HARMLESS VICTIMS LEFT TO DIE!!

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 13 Oct 2009, 15:54

ANGEL OF DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATH

(best Slayer song, imho)

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 13 Oct 2009, 16:23

[quote name="HbW"]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think? If I understand correctly, his experimentation was an extention of previous work in heredity. He obviously would have argued that it would benefit mankind to know the things he might have discovered. Just because we disagree with his perspective doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist.

I hope you're not getting all your information on this from the Slayer song.[/quote]

It's a pretty sweeping generalization to say the entire enterprise of science is responsible for his horrible actions, when he really doesn't represent science nor holds any recognition in physiology or genetics to my knowledge. He doesn't speak for medicine, he might speak for eugenics, which has been discarded as a science.

It's like saying mass-murder has been perpetrated by politicians, evil things have been done in the name of Political Science, when everyone knows that there's nothing wrong with this field of study but rather the individuals who perpetrated the actions.

I'm sure someone is going to point out "Oh but that applies to religion as well, its the individuals' fault, not the religion's!". My only response to that is: read the holy texts. There is nothing more official for certain religions than what is written in the texts, which undoubtedly prescribe violence and cruelty as explicitly as one possibly could.

You're not going to find "kill certain people/do whatever is necessary to advance the field" in "Das Kapital", "The Wealth of Nations", "Origin of Species", or "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres". You will find it, however, in the official texts of the 3 Abrahameic dogmas.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 13 Oct 2009, 20:28

Lavabuggery for the win.

One needs to separate religion from the religious and science from the scientists. You cannot blame science for Mengele's actions. You also cannot blame religion for the multitudes of nutters acting on its behalf. You must blame the individuals.

To compare religion and science, however, is different. Religion is a mix of blind faith (stupidity) mythology (obviously untrue explanations for existence) dogma (rules and guidelines for people too stupid for personal responsibility) glued together with spirituality (a feeling of there being some unseen will behind existence). Science is a way of attempting to explain the universe and its parts and ways with critical thinking and reproducible experimentation.

I do not respect religion.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 13 Oct 2009, 22:56

you are all wrong:

[youtube]SF6NrQuup80[/youtube]

supa tuna · Post by **supa tuna** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:40

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:56

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="HbW"]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think? If I understand correctly, his experimentation was an extention of previous work in heredity. He obviously would have argued that it would benefit mankind to know the things he might have discovered. Just because we disagree with his perspective doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist.

I hope you're not getting all your information on this from the Slayer song.[/quote]

It's a pretty sweeping generalization to say the entire enterprise of science is responsible for his horrible actions, when he really doesn't represent science nor holds any recognition in physiology or genetics to my knowledge. He doesn't speak for medicine, he might speak for eugenics, which has been discarded as a science.

It's like saying mass-murder has been perpetrated by politicians, evil things have been done in the name of Political Science, when everyone knows that there's nothing wrong with this field of study but rather the individuals who perpetrated the actions.

I'm sure someone is going to point out "Oh but that applies to religion as well, its the individuals' fault, not the religion's!". My only response to that is: read the holy texts. There is nothing more official for certain religions than what is written in the texts, which undoubtedly prescribe violence and cruelty as explicitly as one possibly could.

You're not going to find "kill certain people/do whatever is necessary to advance the field" in "Das Kapital", "The Wealth of Nations", "Origin of Species", or "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres". You will find it, however, in the official texts of the 3 Abrahameic dogmas.[/quote]

You won't get any argument from me about that. I do really enjoy playing devil's advocate now and then though, which is why I start a lot of arguments, kinda like this one. But yeah, in reality, I totally agree with you.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 13 Oct 2009, 23:58

[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]you are all wrong:

[youtube]SF6NrQuup80[/youtube][/quote]

I just want to pat him on the head and tell him how cute he isn't.

"Hey kid, you're creepy as hell. And you have no idea what a womb is, do you."

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 14 Oct 2009, 00:24

Devil's advocates FTW.

I empathise with the whole "starting arguments" problem. It's kind of irritating that if you question somebody on some issue it's often perceived as looking for an argument, just being awkward, being arrogant, etc.

Somebody may make some remark/point. I often question it. Now the fact that I questioned them does not mean that I hold the contrasting view. I may actually agree with them. They may come to a similar conclusion through different (possibly flawed) reasoning. Or conversely, they may actually make more sense than I did. I may just be curious. They may say somthing I had not thought of. They may point out flaws in what I think. If I have a opinion on something, I want someone to play devil's advocate. Although I usually just play both roles in my head.

It's analagous to the scientific way of thinking. If I think something or have an opinion that is illogical/wrong,etc. . I'd like to know. Running opinions by people you respect is like subjecting your theories to experiment. You should look for the toughest opposition. I think it's another symptom of the general lack of scientifically minded people in society that most people make up their mind on an issue and get offended/perceive as an act of aggression any sort of questioning/criticism of their reasoning. They'll only speak on the issue if you agree with everything they say. Like the people who come up with a theory and try to prove it, rather than try to disprove it. You're fooling yourself! Stop only looking at the places where you're theory seems to fit! ANY hole in ANY part of a chain of reasoning collapses the whole thing!

I generally try to not engage people who are clearly being irrational. But sometimes I do. Generally I end up just trying to get them to make abundantly clear just how irrational they are being.

I do enjoy getting a rise out of people though.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 14 Oct 2009, 00:41

[quote name="HbW"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="HbW"]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, don't you think? If I understand correctly, his experimentation was an extention of previous work in heredity. He obviously would have argued that it would benefit mankind to know the things he might have discovered. Just because we disagree with his perspective doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist.

I hope you're not getting all your information on this from the Slayer song.[/quote]

It's a pretty sweeping generalization to say the entire enterprise of science is responsible for his horrible actions, when he really doesn't represent science nor holds any recognition in physiology or genetics to my knowledge. He doesn't speak for medicine, he might speak for eugenics, which has been discarded as a science.

It's like saying mass-murder has been perpetrated by politicians, evil things have been done in the name of Political Science, when everyone knows that there's nothing wrong with this field of study but rather the individuals who perpetrated the actions.

I'm sure someone is going to point out "Oh but that applies to religion as well, its the individuals' fault, not the religion's!". My only response to that is: read the holy texts. There is nothing more official for certain religions than what is written in the texts, which undoubtedly prescribe violence and cruelty as explicitly as one possibly could.

You're not going to find "kill certain people/do whatever is necessary to advance the field" in "Das Kapital", "The Wealth of Nations", "Origin of Species", or "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres". You will find it, however, in the official texts of the 3 Abrahameic dogmas.[/quote]

You won't get any argument from me about that. I do really enjoy playing devil's advocate now and then though, which is why I start a lot of arguments, kinda like this one. But yeah, in reality, I totally agree with you.[/quote]

All in good spirit then. It was a fun conversation.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 14 Oct 2009, 02:33

[quote name="Johnny"]Devil's advocates FTW.

I empathise with the whole "starting arguments" problem. It's kind of irritating that if you question somebody on some issue it's often perceived as looking for an argument, just being awkward, being arrogant, etc.

Somebody may make some remark/point. I often question it. Now the fact that I questioned them does not mean that I hold the contrasting view. I may actually agree with them. They may come to a similar conclusion through different (possibly flawed) reasoning. Or conversely, they may actually make more sense than I did. I may just be curious. They may say somthing I had not thought of. They may point out flaws in what I think. If I have a opinion on something, I want someone to play devil's advocate. Although I usually just play both roles in my head.

It's analagous to the scientific way of thinking. If I think something or have an opinion that is illogical/wrong,etc. . I'd like to know. Running opinions by people you respect is like subjecting your theories to experiment. You should look for the toughest opposition. I think it's another symptom of the general lack of scientifically minded people in society that most people make up their mind on an issue and get offended/perceive as an act of aggression any sort of questioning/criticism of their reasoning. They'll only speak on the issue if you agree with everything they say. Like the people who come up with a theory and try to prove it, rather than try to disprove it. You're fooling yourself! Stop only looking at the places where you're theory seems to fit! ANY hole in ANY part of a chain of reasoning collapses the whole thing!

I generally try to not engage people who are clearly being irrational. But sometimes I do. Generally I end up just trying to get them to make abundantly clear just how irrational they are being.

I do enjoy getting a rise out of people though.

[/quote]

/endthread

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 14 Oct 2009, 02:34

PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS:

[youtube]MwsWskgKe5E[/youtube]

I BELIEVE!

supa tuna · Post by **supa tuna** » 14 Oct 2009, 03:00

this ones pretty great too

[youtube]I4_tleYBTB8[/youtube]

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 14 Oct 2009, 03:02

If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion ... _rss_daily

I don't question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God's plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.

It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?

Here, let's start with the basic facts: I hate and fear gay people. The way they feel is different from how I feel, and that causes me a lot of confusion and anger. Everyone knows God is all-powerful. He could easily have given me the capacity to investigate what's behind those feelings rather than tell strangers in the park they're going to hell for holding hands. But God clearly has another path for me. And who am I to question His divine will?

Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn't. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly ask me to explain everything God does. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

Try to understand. If I were capable of thinking and acting any other way, then I'm sure I would, but God seems to be quite adamant about this one. He's just not budging at all. So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I'm going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.

Which isn't to say that my faith hasn't been tested. Believe me, there have been times when I've drifted from the bitter and terrified life God has chosen for me. When my younger brother told me he was gay, it shook my faith to its very core. But here I am, 27 years later, still refusing to take his calls. Just the way God intended.

It's actually pretty astonishing how many complaints to the school board you can make regarding the new band teacher you've never met when you are filled with the Light of Christ and devoid of any real kindness or mercy toward His other children.

At the end of the day, I'm just trying to lead a good Christian life. That means going to church on Sunday, following the Ten Commandments, and fighting what I believe to be a sexual abomination through a series of petty actions and bitter comments made under my breath. Sure, I sometimes wish God would just reach into my heart and give me the ability to treat all people with, at the very least, the decency and respect they deserve as human beings. But unfortunately for that new couple who moved in three houses down, He hasn't yet.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have God's work to do.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 14 Oct 2009, 03:04

who wrote that?

supa tuna · Post by **supa tuna** » 14 Oct 2009, 03:47

holy crap

i found that guys myspace

www.myspace.com/bywhopower

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 15 Oct 2009, 03:40

Fuck those videos are hilarious.

The camera work is epic.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 16 Oct 2009, 04:27

atheism will get you more ladies

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 16 Oct 2009, 20:54

Haha, win!!