Heh, awesome.

Though it does repeat one of the most common misconceptions about Diogenes. He didn't carry around the lamp saying "I'm looking for an honest man." How exactly this confusion came about, I'm not sure; none of the Greek sources have the word "honest" inserted. He just said "I'm looking for a man." (In the Greek, anthropos, or human being.) Which is to say that he thought the unnecessary institutions of civilization twisted humanity into an unrecognizable distortion of itself.

The cask he lived in was a cast off from the temple of Cybele. This is actually highly significant; Cybele was a goddess of the wilderness. The myths surrounding her implied that abandoning civilization was an entirely doable way to live.

One of my favorite quotes attributed to him is this: "When Lysias, the drug-seller, asked him whether he thought that there there any Gods: "How," said he, "can I help thinking so, when I consider you to be hated by them?"

Most of our knowledge of Dioegenes of Sinope comes from Diogenes Laertius, who wrote biographies of many major Greek philosophers in the 3rd century CE. An online English translation can be found here: http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/

>> ^chilaxe:
Re:HadouKen24
You do seem well-informed on this topic.

1) "These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis."
It doesn't seem similar to empirical analysis if people's experiences of mystical feelings are all mutually contradictory. One person believes he or she senses one thing when reading a religious book, and another person senses nothing.

Strictly speaking, simply having a feeling when reading a book is not a mystical feeling. It is just a feeling. I am referring more to things like the [i]writing[/i] of the Bible or the contact that the Oracle of Delphi was said to have with Apollo.

2) "Why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology?"
These videos are intended for the portion of the population that's open to a rationalist approach. If scientific thought builds civilizations, with their advanced medicine and space travel, and religious thought doesn't have a history of verifiable achievements, a portion of the population will regard the balance of evidence as favoring a rationalist approach.

Sure, a scientific approach is extremely useful for developing new kinds of vehicles, safer homes, and so on. No one denies that. It is not at all clear to me how or why a scientific approach ought to be taken for all phenomena or to explain all ways of thinking about things.

There are a number of philosophical and religious positions which are utterly undecidable on the grounds of science and, if correct, render science woefully incomplete. One must evaluate these positions according to criteria other than scientific, such as coherency, consistency, etc.

3) "If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. "
Yes, if there was a verifiable supernatural event, that would constitute some evidence.
However, using mystical feelings as evidence, as most people would, doesn't seem to be supported by the balance of evidence when neurotheology, the neuroscience of theology, is taken into account. (Since 1994, neuroscience has been breaking down exactly what happens in order to (assumedly) create mystical feelings... e.g. turn off the neural circuits responsible for the sense of division between self and world, and suddenly we feel "connected to all things.")
Not everyone believes in relying on the balance of evidence, but this video is intended for those who do, or to at least give folks a sense of the advantages of relying on the balance of evidence.


The "balance of the evidence" is that, when you put people having similar religious experiences in an MRI machine, you see similar things happening in their brains, and the things you see are more or less the kinds of things you'd expect to see whether or not you believe there is an anomalous element to the experience.

"Neurotheology" is not nearly advanced enough to come to any conclusions about the ultimate nature of such experiences, and may in fact be incapable of making such conclusions.

Re:HadouKen24

You do seem well-informed on this topic.


1) "These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis."

It doesn't seem similar to empirical analysis if people's experiences of mystical feelings are all mutually contradictory. One person believes he or she senses one thing when reading a religious book, and another person senses nothing.


2) "Why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology?"

These videos are intended for the portion of the population that's open to a rationalist approach. If scientific thought builds civilizations, with their advanced medicine and space travel, and religious thought doesn't have a history of verifiable achievements, a portion of the population will regard the balance of evidence as favoring a rationalist approach.


3) "If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. "

Yes, if there was a verifiable supernatural event, that would constitute some evidence.

However, using mystical feelings as evidence, as most people would, doesn't seem to be supported by the balance of evidence when neurotheology, the neuroscience of theology, is taken into account. (Since 1994, neuroscience has been breaking down exactly what happens in order to (assumedly) create mystical feelings... e.g. turn off the neural circuits responsible for the sense of division between self and world, and suddenly we feel "connected to all things.")

Not everyone believes in relying on the balance of evidence, but this video is intended for those who do, or to at least give folks a sense of the advantages of relying on the balance of evidence.

There are a few things about this video that I feel I should comment on.

1) It's a bit erroneous for QualiaSoup to claim that the spiritual or supernatural realms proposed by various religions are conceived as realms we have no connection to or ability to contact or explore. If that were the case, then all religion would be a non-starter. Rather, the claim is that there are points of contact--specifically, those central to the particular religion, such as the temples and oracles of ancient Greece, or the revelation of Holy Scripture in Christianity. These give us an "in" for something like an empirical analysis.

2) Skeptics treating God concepts as scientific hypotheses is getting a little tiring. It's not intended as a scientific statement; why should we expect it to conform to the standards of a scientific epistemology? It is, in fact, the primacy of such an epistemology which is under contention.

3) QualiaSoup's point about the inconclusiveness of miracles is well-received--but it is on the same continuum as arguments that we can't know if we are just brains in vats being fed stimuli by mad scientists. If an image of the Japanese Sun goddess Amaterasu were to materialize and defuse all our nuclear weapons, I don't think it would be unreasonable to take as our starting hypothesis that Amaterasu really did just finally prevent a nuclear holocaust. To be sure, scientific investigation may then question that claim and open it to further scrutiny which may or may not confirm the hypothesis, but that does not mean that, prior to such disconfirmation, we do not have at least some good reason to believe in Amaterasu.

All empirical judgments must be made in terms of our background knowledge. Part of that background knowledge is our knowledge of popular religious beliefs. If we have an independently verifiable experience which matches well with the religious beliefs of our--or perhaps another--culture, then we would have grounds to at least provisionally accept at least some of those beliefs--if only in modified form.

4) Finally, it is certainly the case that the kind of demanding pushiness that Soup criticizes is thoroughly unpleasant and unreasonable. Private reasons to believe in a God or gods do not justify that sort of behavior. His words on the problems with that particular attitude toward faith are perfectly appropriate. I worry a bit that the problems with the video will make it difficult for reasonable Christians and Muslims (since those are the two groups I see engaging in that sort of "dialogue") to perceive where he does in fact hit the mark.

If he's not going to phrase things in a manner that such people will respond to, it would be nice if he could present a few comments on the aspects of those two particular religions that encourage such attitudes and behavior. It seems to be strongly linked to monotheism--Judaism has less of such problematic attitudes, but they are still present, and seem to have been much more present in ancient Judaism. In polytheistic traditions, one tends to find a much higher respect for debate and diversity of thought. One need only look at the vigorous debates between Greek philosophers, who could agree on the subject of the gods no more than in any other areas, or the staggering profusion of religious practices and beliefs to be found in India. It is misleading to speak of such traditions as "tolerant;" the word implies that it takes some effort of will to maintain civility, when in fact polytheists tend to accept such diversity as a matter of fact.

that was a fantastic video!you should post it.i think its a valuable component and a great tutorial.
i agree wholeheartedly with the videos premise,and i think it also strengthens my position.
let me explain:
the reason why i stated it would be futile to argue one way other the other matters concerning faith was expressed quite eloquently in the video you shared.
i have no concrete evidence or data that can concretely convince you of anything.however,i do not reject or dismiss the findings of science in order for me to retain my faith.so while you will find me agreeing with you on many subjects concerning science,you will also find i will not put any facts on the table concerning my faith.because there are no facts and i am very aware of this.
maybe it would help if i gave you an idea how i view things:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perceiving-Reality-A-useful-philosophy
notice the lack of dogma?of a bearded white dude with jealous,genocidal tendencies?
a total lack of judgment?
the video i shared is a very over-simplified explanation of how i view reality.
could i be wrong?
of course.my faith is not based on a book,or a theology so i have the freedom to be curious and ask questions.my faith is organic in its ability to evolve along with my understand of the universe.so if anything defines my faith,it would be science.
which is only limited by our ability to observe and test.
in my opinion,science is the testing and validating the observable physical universe.basically..the study of the creator.the more science uncovers the more that is revealed that is beautiful,poetic and far more complicated than any doctrine or dogma could ever imagine.

i state i am a man of faith because thats what it is..faith.i have faith that we all have a divine spark.a part of us that is sacred and connected to the creator/god/goddess/buddha/the All,whatever you wish to call it.we are all co-creators..we are all just "potential",raw and un-tapped.i cannot prove with any conclusive evidence that what i feel/think is correct.so it must be called what it is...faith.
we are mind/body/spirit.
i say this with conviction,but i have no way to prove this to you,and to try without any measurable means would insult you.so i dont try.

i shall give you one example where i hope you have experienced to relate,somewhat ,to what i am attempting to convey:
ever love a woman? ever love her so completely that when you were together it seemed you fell into her?and she you?where you both seemed to have created a space that was so lovely as to be over-powering?that when you were together time seemed to stop?
would you be insulted if someone said to you "bah,thats just chemicals and hormones.nothing more,nothing less".
but you KNEW..it was more,and to reduce it to mere chemicals and hormones just cheapened the experience.and if it IS just chemicals and hormones,electric synapses firing.then we should be able to replicate this affect yes?
but we cant..not yet at least.
is there something more? is it possible?
understand i am not trying to convince you of anything,i am just asking the same questions i ask myself.one of the millions i ask myself.
i left the church at 14 due to my pastors absolute failure to answer my questions.
because if you do a little research and study the history of the bible,qu'ran,torah et'al dogma and doctrine will fall short everytime.they are man made...its obvious.
but what of those questions?the answers is what i find most intimate and revealing.

i believe,through the experiences and encounters,that we are more than our sum parts.what that actually is,i do not know,but i am "faithful" we are more and shall continue to ask the questions.it is also for this reason i do not try to convince anybody else that my "faith" is valid in their eyes.that would be me seeking validation,and i need none.

the only thing i am wary of,and i think its a large reason why i do not attempt to convince anybody of my faith,is the trap of conflation.to use information and mold it to fit my world view.religious people do this ad nauseum,as do consprisy(sp?) theorists and politicians.while being faithful may fly in the face of logic,i do my best to employ logic as often as i can.
but when your questions deal with things outside the realm of the phyisical universe sometimes all you have is faith.

i am thoroughly enjoying this conversation my friend.i am doing my best to construct complete sentences and paragraphs for you.but i am the run-on-sentence king.you on the other hand,write beautifully.
thank you very much for your insight my friend.
the conversation continues.
till next time...namaste.

>> ^gwiz665:
My mother is a saint!!


I'd say she's more of a goddess...that thing she does with her tongue mmmmmmmm...

And why can't parents talk to their own children about sex?

I think that's a much bigger problem than an accidental sex tape. Goddess forbid children know what sex is, even tho at that age I'm sure they already know much more about violence than any kid needs to know.

i'll be honest I upvoted it because I liked it when she stands up and gets the books. Nice ass. crazy beliefs.

I dont get that sort of mother earth goddess father god type light a candle for them shit. although I watched that bill baily thing on stone hendge and thats pretty neat, four thousand years ago and they tracked the sun on the solstice and such. pretty neato.

I think the kind of people this video is pandering to think this makes her a goddess. Actually I know they do.

In reply to this comment by dirtythirtyix:
If getting sensible people to lose respect for you was a swimming pool. This video would be a steeply-pitched waterslide leading into it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:


You understand you are comparing the words of people who lived two hundred years ago whose words were recorded in English to that of two-thousand year old text written in dead languages that, to this day, scholars still argue if Genesis refers to a "God", "Goddess" or "Goddesses" that created the universe. I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

And to point out slavery as if it was a protected right under the Constitution suggests to me how little you may know about the history of this country. Forgive me if I sound as if I'm being condescending. I'm really not, but you do understand the Declaration of Independence was written at the beginning of the Revolution, right? And you do understand at that time, it was imperative to have all colonies backing the new Union lest we lose... even the Southern colonies, which refused to join the Union if slavery was to be abolished.

So, of course I wouldn't want to give voting rights to white land-owners only. That's absurd. Here again I cannot help but think you're trying to shove me in another fringe group. You act as if we are all too stupid and petty to live with freedom and liberty. As if for some odd reason a larger, richer, socialized government is the best alternative. That makes no sense to me.

Oh dear goddess

Just because we lack proof of the non- existence doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true. As my little sister often says to me "Just because you can't see something, doesnt mean it's not real." to which i retort, "But that doesn't mean that it IS real either!"

I admit that I would have to concede some kind of faith to definitively say that god does not exist. I would say that the idea is EXTREMELY unlikely (since we're speaking in specifics)

What exactly is the difference between the practical and scientific knowledge? (according to you)

Allow me to borrow a few words from Richard Dawkins, (paraphrased) I assume that when you say god that you mean the judeo christian god and not say any of these :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
You could have picked any of these gods, and lets see here,
Further information: Australian Aboriginal mythology

* Adnoartina - the lizard guard of Uluru
* Altjira - God of Dreams
* Anjea - Fertility goddess
* Bagadjimbiri - Two brothers and creator gods
* Baiame - God of rain
* Bamapana - A trickster god who causes discord
* Banaitja - A creator god
* Bobbi-Bobbi - Supernatural being who lived in the heavens in the Dreamtime
* Bunjil - The supreme god, represented as an eagle
* Daramulum - Son of Baiame
* Dilga - Goddess of fertility and growth
* Djanggawul - Three siblings, two female and one male, who created the landscape of Australia
* Eingana - Creator goddess
* Galeru - A rainbow snake who swallowed the Djanggawul
* Gnowee - A solar goddess
* Julana - A lecherous spirit who surprises women
* Julunggul - A rainbow snake goddess
* Karora - A creator god
* Kidili - Ancient moon-man
* Kunapipi - Mother goddess (patron deity of heroes)
* Mangar-kunjer-kunja - Lizard god who created humans
* Numakulla - Two sky gods who created all life on Earth
* Pundjel - Creator god
* Ulanji - Snake-ancestor of the Binbinga
* Wala
* Wawalag - Sisters who were daughters of Djanggawul
* Wuriupranili - A solar goddess
* Yurlungur - Mythological copper snake

Do you believe in these gods as well? Do you concede faith to them because their existence can't be disproven?

Give it up, if you were born and raised in Africa you'd be worshiping Jengu (water/river spirit). All I'm asking for is a re-evaluation of your opinions with what fits with the facts.

If your doctor came into the surgery room with all sorts of unproven ideas about how to operate on you, you'd understandably feel uncomfortable. AND THATS A GOOD THING!! The demand for solid evidence has given us clean water, a healthy abundant food supply, modern medicine, and brought an end to witch hunts! Well...Almost.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/10/03/book-burning-fueling-flames-of-censorship/

More people that are willing to re-evaluate their opinions (something encouraged by a scientific approach) means less crazy ideas running rampant and more sensible honest people.

In reply to this comment by nadabu:
Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

I've been whistling this song all week at work. I sound like a weirdo, but this woman has inspired me to be sure my next girlfriend is as cute, talented, and interesting as this girl seems to be 2 minutes. I've never in my life been attracted to anyone in video format, but there's something ineffable about this goddess in the fridge. Oh, Fridge Goddess, I will make my video reply someday!

EDIT - Actually, instead of just listing it, I'll copy out my descriptions of them too since I already wrote this up for another forum:


1. The Flashbulb - Soundtrack to a Vacant Life | Instrumental | 4.5/5

Simply put, a seamless, sweeping epic of genres that dabbles in everything from sombre piano ballads, to upbeat flamenco, caustic electronica, serene ambience, rhythmic percussive tribal drum sections and haunting string sections, imposing every possible emotion on the listener. If anything, the sole weakness is that the rough 2-3 minute length of each of the 31 songs means they don't work so effectively as standalone compositions but as verses in a protracted poem, making the idea of listening to the entirety of it a tad daunting.


2. Protest The Hero - Fortress | Progressive Metal | 4.5/5

Metal that while relatively intricate yet melodic enough and hell, catchy enough to avoid divulging into incomprehensible technical wankery. Lyrics abound with references to goddesses and dethroned kings but it's decidedly tongue in cheek. Perhaps the biggest weaknesses resides in a lack of coherence, a tendency for the album to mesh together as a string of riffs, with little sense of a recurring chorus or verses within songs, but then you can take that as a plus depending on how you look at it. Besides that and a couple of immensely obnoxious vocal lines it's a pretty solid effort all around.


3. Blue Sky Black Death - Late Night Cinema | Instrumental Trip-hop | 4.5/5

One of the least expected surprises this year for me, partly because I generally despise anything that relates in any way to hip-hop or remixes yet I was sold on first listen. It’s just such a supremely chilled out but simultaneously melodically multilayered album which weaves hip-hop/trip-hop styling with a fairly significant utilisation of violins, trumpets, keyboards and an organ, capping it off with a distinct jazz tinge.


4. In Mourning - Shrowded Divine | Melodic Death Metal | 4/5

Genre-wise they’re probably best described as melodic death metal based but with progressive and doom influenced sections, reminiscent of Opeth, but not exactly the same. I initially junked this when I first picked it up but it’s grown on me immensely since then. There’s nothing immediately about them that sticks out as particularly impressive, the riffs aren’t all too complex, the melody isn’t overly diverse. If anything the drumming is quite good and both the harsh and clean vocals are solid. Nevertheless they clearly have a knack for creating memorable melody lines, and many minor touches such as the use juxtaposed clean and harsh vocals of essentially the same lines, coupled with a number of sexy breakdowns and a consistently bleak and permeating tone really make this album memorable in some indescribable way.


5. Transcending Bizarre? - The Serpent's Manifolds | Avant-Garde Black Metal | 4/5

Typical black metal brain mashing, but nicely broken up by violin sections to prevent migraines! Again it really feels like this band just clicks, but that not to say they can’t put out some impressively melodic riffs, and solos or bring it intensity-wise. In terms of criticism, there’s probably too much reliance on violin for a metal album, but that’s a very subjective disparagement, also a select few sections drag a bit ... oh and the intro is obnoxious and highly skipable. Oh and keyboards, oh the humanity! Run for the hills!


6. Thrice - The Alchemy Index - Vol.3 & 4 Air & Earth | Experimental Rock | 4/5

Partially successful but suffers from issues strangely distinct from the first two volumes. Whereas the first two could perhaps be argued to have taken the element concepts too literally both melodically and lyric-wise, this time around there are fairly tentative connections to the elements. With Air there’s simply a heavy use of reverb and echo to create the impression of an expansive soundscape, among a number of other tricks; whereas Earth is merely embodied by heavy use of stripped back and stark acoustic guitar with an American folk grounding. In all, neither really captures the concept as effectively as the haphazard, chaotic, distorting Fire; and if anything the biggest weakness of Air is it doesn’t distance it enough from the seeping smoothness that characterised Water to offer anything particularly distinctive. All in all it still remains an intriguing unconventional attempt with a number of standout songs, particularly the sonnets that outro each of the volumes oddly enough, led by consistently strong vocals.


7. Bar Kokhba Sextet - Lucifer The Book of Angels - Vol. 10 | Jazz | 4/5

I'm not really qualified to comment on or critique jazz as I'm very much a neophyte to it, but this is some excellent stuff.


8. Lights Out Asia - Eyes Like Brontide | Post Rock | 4/5

To me the main element any post rock effort needs to really be effective is a pervasive, consistent atmosphere, which this album abounds with. It doesn't fall into clichés such as blasting you into submission by badgering you with volume changes, or an over reliance on monotonous arpeggios, but builds upon subtle layers of sound to create a vast, rich soundscape of echoing guitars, staccato electronica beats and fleeting vocals.


9. Opeth - Watershed | Progressive Death Metal | 4/5

Disappointingly inconsistent by their standards, but still a pretty solid album all around. Some songs definitely drag massively, and certain parts sound technically overindulging and tiresome particularly the outro to Burden. On the other hand in my humble opinion it also has some of the best songs they have written, the way the progressive acoustic guitar section fades in and out in Porcelain Heart for example is seamlessly mesmerising, Hessian Peel is almost equally memorable. Regardless this is no Blackwater Park unfortunately.


10. Mutyumu - Ilya | Post Rock | 4/5

Post rock doesn't really give this band justice. It's like an odd mix of opera and hardcore Japanese vocals, with heavily piano reliant post rock grounding. Awesome? Somewhat. Half the time its carried by stirring complex but seemingly effortless piano and string sections unfolding at a blistering pace coupled with occasional strangely effective hushed murmurs, yet the other half of the time it cascades into almost unbearable droning repetition. Now given that, Prayer is damn well one of the best post rock songs I have ever heard and it really is a pity that the rest of the album wasn’t equally brilliant. I probably overrate this a tad too but well ... goshdarnit it’s all gotta be about job creation and shoring up our economy.

>> ^GDGD:
>> ^legacy0100:
i think the black kid is forgetting to blink, that's why his eyes are tearing up

ding!


*Or* - with all of the Call of Duty 4 sounds in the other videos - my bet is he could be watching the [spoilerrific] nuclear explosion portion of the single-player campaign. It was pretty moving to me.

Anyway, cool idea for a video, but it would make me a little annoyed in case it was agenda-driven. Our faces don't exactly turn into chiseled Roman gods and goddesses if we pick up the Times and start reading, or watch a movie.