Dubstepforum.com

Threads like this make me wonder why I bother with this forum.

There's a perfectly good thread for documenting and describing bowel movements but no.. intelligent, well informed and posters whom I respect somewhat (even if I don't always agree with i.e. magma's politics), arguing with total fucking idiots. We could be talking about bowel movemnts, science shit, space shit, msuic shit, but please... not this shit.

Why?! Why?! Why are you even bothering. Take a leaf out of Dawkin's book and simply refuse to engage in any conversation with them.

cityzen wrote:

noam wrote:

cityzen wrote: Noam: Why is my sig wrong?

re: your sig: i duno, something like direct experience seems to suggest something entirely empirical, and more so - physical/material.

Pretty much this, however, if we're talking about knowledge of a theory then (imo) direct experience is nothing more than reading about it or hearing it.
It just means that 1000 people could tell you that the grass is green, but without seeing it for yourself you don't know the grass is green.
I have come to respect your opinion, if you can pick holes in my sig I will remove it.

direct experience is akin to naive realism - only believing what you're seeing, it really limits the depth of your reality, im not gona claim thats what you believe, just that perhaps you've not fully explored the effects of that kind of belief

the most convincing and simplistic argument against such a view is that we have a 'veil of perception' limiting our genuine, direct experience of anything

basically the gap between the external world and your brain means you never have 'direct' experience of any external reality

you can choose to believe that that is true, or that it is not

still, consider this - the bent stick in the water argument, take a straight stick, submerge half of it in water, the stick now appears bent - direct experience of the bent stick would tell you that it is bent right? why? because it looks like its bent - the reason you know its not bent is because you are able to reason, that the stick doesn't actually bend when it goes half in water, that the bend comes because of a principle of refraction - this is inductive reasoning, where the conclusion of your argument amounts to more than the information that was contained in the premises of the argument can tell you.

so you rely in everyday life, on knowledge which isn't necessarily always directly experienced - instead, more than anything we use inductive reasoning or inferrence, thought not infallible in anyway it is the best we have (aside from deductive reasoning ofcourse - 2+2=4)

i do see a way in which your sig is true tho no doubt, but it seems like a more abstract idea than a strictly material one

magma wrote:

noam wrote:

cityzen wrote:^^This guy is going to go far. Welcome to the forum.

Noam: Why is my sig wrong?

my favourite bit is how he still believes i believe in the holy bible

Rule #1 of the fighty, Dawkinsesque atheist - if you defend theism, you MUST be a theist. I think Alien Pimp thinks I'm Christian, too.

It's that sort of failure of critical thinking that leads me to believe they might not the best people to engage with or listen to... they're just attack dogs who have found a new faith to defend.

Oh great! another crony, oh joy!

Well I guess its a slight improvement on your facile picture pasting cohort. mr WWF, if there's a problem with my reasoning then just point it out.

I'm an attack dog? Who said this:

wow... i think we got off on the wrong foot there, you must be new??

Hi im Smart, you're Dumb, nice to meet you

I gotta laugh how you say it with no qualification, like your smart on a world scale. heh.

The only thing i would take back is the comparrison to 8yr olds. But only because I could have phrased it better. Like: In a sense we are all benefitting from 1/4 of a millenium's worth of knowledge, so a teenager may have a more relevant world-view. Which is purely a product of time/knowledge, not as you mistakenly, inferred, brain cells.

But if you are observant: I have yet to see this unfortunately, then you will notice I have said European and Mid-Eastern. Not Far-eastern The Bhuddist notions are a lot more inclusive, there is no hate or small mindedness I can see. Hindu (allthough it is mid-eastern) I would place in the more enlightened bracket.

So I'm not anti-religion. And jisreal seems like a nice guy so i dont want to keep having to defend myself (from only false/misapprehended inferences, I haven't need to defend my arguments) which has the unfortunate symptom of attacking christianity.

Gosh, you are terribly fighty, aren't you?

Usually you can find noam and I disagreeing about semantics, but we seem to agree when faced with someone determined to be right without really making any points that anyone wasn't already aware of.

If you can sum up what you're actually arguing about in a sentence then I'll give you 200 Internets... as far as I can work out, you're passionately arguing about how great an agnostic you are with.... agnostics...

WALK AWAY, MAGMA!!!

Bad teeth is a sure sign that you've been associating with cretins.

he's sounding more and more like a bot each post

like magma said, round this up quick or do one Thicko McThickerson

Look this is really getting old fast. Im not arguing anything, i am simply defending myself from people attacking what I have not actually said, and various insults.

I will continue to do so as long as there is a need. But from the tone of your post, i dont think have a problem with you. Peace out.

Oh, lol. There we go more insults.

Ok fine. If all you can do is make pathetic little insults, in lieu of logical argument then i have nothing to worry about.

see Firky, resolution can be achieved... we'll call this a ... Rezalution

AHAHAHAHAHAOMG

HAAHHAHAAHA

omg

(my name is Reza btw)

firky wrote:WALK AWAY, MAGMA!!!

Bad teeth is a sure sign that you've been associating with cretins.

But it's Friday afternoon and I'm BOOOORRRRRED!

noam wrote:basically the gap between the external world and your brain means you never have 'direct' experience of any external reality

I will reply to the rest of your post in due time (at the library atm where I should be printing off tickets for flights to Outlook) but essentially the above is what my sig is driving at.
I fully expect to get flamed for this but it's how I live my life. Instead of limiting my perception of reality, it is my opinion that it increases it. Having lived with this philosophy and the 'normal' way of thinking i'm able to see both sides of the argument.
As I said, I respect your opinion and, as always, I am open to new ways of thinking or evidence contrary to my belief system. Maybe that's the difference between me and most people - If I can be shown the truth, by anyone, instead of being angry that i've been proved wrong, I would be eternally grateful.

cityzen wrote:

noam wrote:basically the gap between the external world and your brain means you never have 'direct' experience of any external reality

I will reply to the rest of your post in due time (at the library atm where I should be printing off tickets for flights to Outlook) but essentially the above is what my sig is driving at.
I fully expect to get flamed for this but it's how I live my life. Instead of limiting my perception of reality, it is my opinion that it increases it. Having lived with this philosophy and the 'normal' way of thinking i'm able to see both sides of the argument.
As I said, I respect your opinion and, as always, I am open to new ways of thinking or evidence contrary to my belief system. Maybe that's the difference between me and most people - If I can be shown the truth, by anyone, instead of being angry that i've been proved wrong, I would be eternally grateful.

arite, well it doesn't necessarily limit your perception of reality, but ascribing to that principle rigidly means you end up having to accept and deny all sorts of weird claims like the stick bends when its half submerged in water - we know that isn't true. the stick does not bend - but if you rigidly ascribe to naive/direct realism like that, yes it may broaden your perspectives such that you then believe a stick truly bends when its half submerged in water and goes straight again when its pulled out, but who is going to accept that that is true??

You see, right now I can't get into why I believe what I believe without sounding like an absolute nut, which is a shame because that's what most religious folk sound like.
Fuck it, what if I was to say the stick does bend. What do you say to that?
We all understand the laws of our world (maybe not that randorando guy), all i'm trying to say is that nothing is set in stone. We all believe the stick doesn't bend but do we know the stick doesn't bend. (i'm sure there will follow some scientific reasoning behind why the stick doesn't bend, and when it does, the stick water example becomes null and void. Just using it for the sake of argument)

I don't go around in every day life thinking i'm Neo in the Matrix, essentially my sig is just a philosophical tool, like a Koan. It is a thought that makes us question our perception of what is.



We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.



Yeah, pretty sure this'll come across as the ramblings of a mad man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Direct or firsthand experience is never legitimate evidence for anything. Certainly not empirical under any circumstance.

tuckerlinen wrote:right. proving god's existence defeats the point.
the point of believing in god is that you believe in god.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of believing in God was so you didn't burn for eternity in Hell?

Proving God's existence doesn't defeat the point at all. If we can prove he doesn't exist, then all these Christians can stop wasting their time praying. Similarly, if we can prove he does exist, I'll stop smoking so much weed and start going to church every Sunday instead of doing my radio show.

noam wrote:(my name is Reza btw)

I knew a guy named Reza who went to a University around here. One time he was drunk and raged on us for mispronouncing it somehow, so he told us just to call him A-Rab. And from then on he became A-Rab. He also knew a shit ton about the old grime scene, he was from the UK doing a international study thing.

cityzen wrote:You see, right now I can't get into why I believe what I believe without sounding like an absolute nut, which is a shame because that's what most religious folk sound like.
Fuck it, what if I was to say the stick does bend. What do you say to that?
We all understand the laws of our world (maybe not that randorando guy), all i'm trying to say is that nothing is set in stone. We all believe the stick doesn't bend but do we know the stick doesn't bend. (i'm sure there will follow some scientific reasoning behind why the stick doesn't bend, and when it does, the stick water example becomes null and void. Just using it for the sake of argument)

I don't go around in every day life thinking i'm Neo in the Matrix, essentially my sig is just a philosophical tool, like a Koan. It is a thought that makes us question our perception of what is.



We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.



Yeah, pretty sure this'll come across as the ramblings of a mad man.

Lol, in defence of all the time I've spent arguing with you, I was sort of under the impression you did.

therapist wrote:

cityzen wrote:You see, right now I can't get into why I believe what I believe without sounding like an absolute nut, which is a shame because that's what most religious folk sound like.
Fuck it, what if I was to say the stick does bend. What do you say to that?
We all understand the laws of our world (maybe not that randorando guy), all i'm trying to say is that nothing is set in stone. We all believe the stick doesn't bend but do we know the stick doesn't bend. (i'm sure there will follow some scientific reasoning behind why the stick doesn't bend, and when it does, the stick water example becomes null and void. Just using it for the sake of argument)

I don't go around in every day life thinking i'm Neo in the Matrix, essentially my sig is just a philosophical tool, like a Koan. It is a thought that makes us question our perception of what is.



We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.



Yeah, pretty sure this'll come across as the ramblings of a mad man.

Lol, in defence of all the time I've spent arguing with you, I was sort of under the impression you did.

Lol, well yeah, perhaps I should have used a different example. I don't believe I have any super human powers or anything of the sort, I do think that the world we live in, what we call reality, is nothing more than an illusion much like the matrix in the film.

Basically, no-one knows that God exists, and no-one can prove it either.

/Thread

unwind wrote:Basically, no-one knows that God exists, and no-one can prove it either.

/Thread

Not really. If he does exist, and he is man-shaped (as the bible suggests) then there's no reason he couldn't come and have a blaze up with you at your house.

If he doesn't exist - well, that's where you can't prove it