Also on the front page today, "Nobody's Fault but My Own" (Beck). An introspective day on the sift I guess.

Also on the front page today, "Nobody's Fault but Mine" (Led Zeppelin). An introspective day on the sift I guess.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Again, I don't necessarily think you're a sexist or a misogynist. I think you may be suffering from the same "boys club" attitude that many of the engineers I've worked with operate under. I just want you to introspect a little and consider the possibility.

Possibly. I'd like to think I don't suffer from that, although in reality, I cannot ignore the fact that we are all a product of the society we grew up in. In my defence, it is something I've thought about and I feel I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.

>> ^KnivesOut:

For the sake of argument, what if we replaced the masculine/feminine terms in your question with racial ones:
"why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single [race] dominated to the other [race], e.g. [some profession] to [blacks], [some other profession] to [whites]?"
I'm drawing no conclusions about the importance or the value of one profession over the other, merely putting it into racial terms instead of sexual ones. To me, it feels just as icky.

I understand the ick factor there. But isn't there a difference between assuming a racial bias and a gender or even cultural bias? (bias is really the wrong word here, but I'm struggling to come up with a better one). I don't believe we can ignore the fact that different genders or cultures show aptitudes for different things (I believe culture is more important than race in determining this, in fact, I generally believe race to be largely irrelevant).

I guess my idea is to be "post-feminist/racist". I'd hope that we can accept individuals on their merits.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I believe that sexism is still widely accepted in our society, to a much higher degree than racial intolerance, or even tolerance of "alternate lifestyles". It's insidious, and it crosses the entirety of our society (sexism in every racial community.) Women still get paid less for the same work, they still have a harder time getting promotions (and then still make less money.) Women are even very sexist against each-other (you should see the looks my wife gets when she tells other mothers at school functions that she's finishing a compsci degree.)


This I agree with. Look at the current crop of games from E3. I utterly dislike the idea that anyone is judged in a career on anything other than their merits.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Maybe I'm overly touchy about it, and for that I apologize.


You probably shouldn't. In general, I am a cantankerous, grumpy bastard who's entirely too sure of the correctness of his own opinions.

I like you and your opinions (in general) so lets get that out of the way. This isn't personal. My wife is studying computer science and puts up with the kind of latent sexism that I believe your statements represent (so maybe it is a bit personal, but it isn't meant to be a personal attack against you.)

I just enjoy a good debate. <== bold font of peace
Again, I don't necessarily think you're a sexist or a misogynist. I think you may be suffering from the same "boys club" attitude that many of the engineers I've worked with operate under. I just want you to introspect a little and consider the possibility.

For the sake of argument, what if we replaced the masculine/feminine terms in your question with racial ones:

"why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single [race] dominated to the other [race], e.g. [some profession] to [blacks], [some other profession] to [whites]?"

I'm drawing no conclusions about the importance or the value of one profession over the other, merely putting it into racial terms instead of sexual ones. To me, it feels just as icky.

I believe that sexism is still widely accepted in our society, to a much higher degree than racial intolerance, or even tolerance of "alternate lifestyles". It's insidious, and it crosses the entirety of our society (sexism in every racial community.) Women still get paid less for the same work, they still have a harder time getting promotions (and then still make less money.) Women are even very sexist against each-other (you should see the looks my wife gets when she tells other mothers at school functions that she's finishing a compsci degree.)

Maybe I'm overly touchy about it, and for that I apologize.
In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by KnivesOut:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ChaosEngine" title="member since November 9th, 2009" class="profilelink">ChaosEngine you said "why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?"

Was that your question that I was supposed to answer? My answer is: that's a sexist question.

I know you fucking love bold type, so I thought that might help to get through.


I resisted for a few days but I eventually gave in and read your reply. I could escalate this little feud with a few more petty insults, but fuck it, it's late, I'm tired and having read some of your other posts, I don't think you're actually a bad guy.

That said, I believe you're wrong here. It's not a sexist question. One could imply a sexist answer from it, but that was not the spirit in which it was intended. Hell, it wasn't even rhetorical. It was genuinely meant to provoke a discussion around what careers and vocations appeal to genders and what are the ramifications of that. The fact that there are less women in science does not mean that women are less intelligent than men, as much as the fact that there are less men in nursing does not mean that mean are less caring.

My question was (and still is) about whether we need a "programme" to change this. What are the benefits of this versus an "organic" approach of just letting people do what they want or are good at?

If you really feel the need to establish my sexist/non sexist credentials, maybe you should read some of my earlier posts on the subject. Hell, ask bareboards, I've had a lot of interesting discussions on this.

Anyway, consider this a virtual olive branch. I truly have better things to do with my time than fight you over this, but I don't appreciate being labelled something I'm not.

Oh, and bold type is fucking awesome :

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

>> ^KnivesOut:

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.

Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.

I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.

Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.

Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.

The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?

I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Question: why do we need to promote science to women?
More broadly: why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?
What are we losing by not having female scientists?
Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to do a) what they're good at and b) what they're interested in and c) what is useful?
Note: I am not arguing against more women in science, I'm arguing against people doing jobs they're not suited for after being taken in by a slick marketing campaign.

FEAR.

It is amazing to me how undeniable in every-way if you systematically take apart his masterpiece of nothing and throw it into tiered columns and subject matters via science and psychology, setup a little like a tree you will always find that the source component of everything you've just heard is FEAR. It is the literal trunk of the tree with the neurons and chemical impulses that make us being the roots. Everything above the trunk in the canopy is DRIVEN by that fear meaning that if it happens to be a large amount of information then you MAY NEED TO discredit it.

Everything this man has ever said may be a result of fear, we don't know for sure, but in this situation EVERYTHING was. But, if you look at his other shows or speeches I bet he has a lot of anger driven (anger is fear, BTW) pieces, but they probably all come from one source and that is FEAR.

This is why so many religion speakers and believers fail. They don't understand themselves. They don't do enough self-introspection except to get past the front door. If you kept looking you TOO would also realize the same things scientists say, these things all stem from one primary system in our body: the fight or flight basically. For many of us WE ARE fighting, but oh so many are just running--trampling and killing anything in their path in irrational escape to nowhere, nowhere.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^shuac:
I liked this Hulk movie more than the one with Edward Norton.

I loved Ang Lee's Hulk movie. Found the Norton one to be mindlessly dull.


Hear hear! Not only was the film like a comic strip come to life (the style of the wipe/transition featured in this sift) but Lee's Hulk was much more introspective...and what's so wrong with introspection? <- that's not directed at you, EDB, that's directed at the film's many many many detractors. Plus, I couldn't give a toss how purple his shorts were! Or how green his skin was! I even enjoyed Nolte's character and his powers.

I'd recommend just trundling along to a public library and flicking through an introductory psych textbook for a section on attitudes and/or persuasion. After an intro book a psych book dedicated to social psych would probably be a good option too, as it would probably have a more in depth look at attitudes.

The material might be less related to your original post about your own introspections though. It would probably be more about what makes attitudes stable/labile etc. It's interesting stuff though!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What text(s) would you recommend?
In reply to this comment by berticus:
Actually, there is an enormous literature on persuasion, argument, attitude change, etc. Social psychologists love that stuff. You should look into the psychology of persuasion, it's fascinating -- but prepare to be depressed.

As to your 'mental states', I doubt it's black and white. I'd say it's a continuum as per jonny's comments, and shifts along this continuum are due to attending — or not attending — to certain cues at certain times that change the way you argue.

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

>>> You believe it's 'possible to be ignorant without being hateful' but the pro-gay 'agendists' as well as politically-correct foot soldiers don't see it that way. It's easier to use intimidation and shackling free speech than send "new" ideas through the meat grinder of public debate.

>>> If there was a homosexual gene that could be detected very early, the odds are parents more numerous than you would approve of would abort the child. I'M not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, but it is a less desirable trait, like being born a little person or missing limbs is less desirable.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues.

>>> I hate hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Labeling Others Who Disagree simply as "haters" is the easy way out. It's easy to demand "equality" when you think that burden doesn't befall you, but the reality is that actions in this world have consequences. Do you know the facts and figures (mental health stats, disease rates) regarding homosexuality? Some of these problems are exacerbated by society/by intolerance, but the disease rates and promiscuity among gay males is tragic without blaming society. The left is doing no one any favors by hiding the ugly side of life, any more than the local paper does when they hide the race of at-large criminals to avoid being perceived as racist.

I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

>>> Brushing aside these gentle ad hominem aspersions (all incorrect BTW) once you become (more) conservative, you can't go back. Like the atheisifters who at one time sincerely believed in God but now don't---it's the exact same feeling. It's knowing that in life there are no 'solutions', only tradeoffs, and that global wealth, while steadily growing, is still finite and has alternate uses which make choosing how to utilize it important.

>>> If you claim you are against "intolerance", then you can't be halfway in. You can't righteously condemn Whitey or Straightey for exercising a right to free speech, then remain silent when Minority does the exact same thing, giving a free pass due to "past injustices".


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.
The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.
Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

Will you marry me please?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in internet forums that have a penchant for social justice.

An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.

An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:

So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

First paragraph is interesting, and has 2 good questions in it. One, how can you trust something that comes from something that can't be trusted. Second is the issue of what rationality even is. And is it even possible to bring it into question, ever. These 2 questions are the prime questions in my own person philosophy, and mirror some of the greater minds of history, I am, after all, only a single man in the long history of human thought.

I too am but a man, limited and small, but hopefully I can bring some godly wisdom into this. Between the two of us, maybe we can reduce this down to size.

I think the first question is actually very easy to answer, not to say that I didn't struggle for an answer for a long time. It is hard to think of things like this completely unclouded. But, the answer remains very easy, for me that is. There is a famous logical fallacy called "Guilt by association" , or, the Hitler Card, or various other things *Reductio ad Hitlerum when being MR. Smarty Pants *. For me to have a problem with its emergent nature from nature; I would need to be able to make an argument against it based on its own lack of integrity, not its associations with nature. One shouldn't be to troubled making this failed comparison, I do it more often than I care to admit!

Yes, I believe it is commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. That the conclusion is inferred based on a defect of origins rather than the current meaning. I would not condemn rationality on that basis alone, but I use it to show that necessarily in the secular worldview, rationality is not the invincible and eternal God it is made out to be; that it had very humble origins inside a petri dish. This is just to crack open the door of introspection.

To say the same thing over, an objects creation doesn't mean it is still only consistent of the properties that made it. One can see this in ourselves, we are made from inorganic material, and thusly, it isn't proper to say we aren't organic because we came from the inorganic. Also, when I combine things of 2 different chemical properties, it is likely that I will arrive with something with completely different properties from the other two. So both in the logical base, and the higher abstraction, we fail to condemn rationality, we must attack its merits if we hope to win!

You're right, not much is to be gained by this particular argument about rationality. We must go deeper and suss out what it actually is.

The way you went about trying to condemn rationality from my own starting point of naturalistic existence was, however, the correct way to go about it. What I mean to say is you didn't try to use reason to undercut reason, like the postmodernists do, but tried to show that the foundations, at is concerns my own world view, are unfounded at the base. Proper technique, but a flawed argument, IMO. Leaps ahead of some European thinkers though

Thanks. I am happy that you understand that this is about worldviews and their foundations, because that is really the heart of the matter. Many people don't seem to realize that their belief system is a lens through which they perceive reality. Jesus said this is the pivotal issue:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The second issue of the first statement is that of rationality itself. What is it that we even mean! For myself, I have divided the term into several sub-terms to help me both think about it, and talk about specific properties of rationality. The 2 terms that I an other continental philosophers have used are Logic and Reason. Reason being the so call a posteriori method of thinking, which fall to the realms of science, and Logic; being the dubed A priori, or statements that are a necessarily true...or true without need for examination. You might of read many of my rants on how I do not trust A posteriori as a method for finding truth. It leaves itself to all the problems of induction that for my part, have never been resolved.

I agree that we can reduce rationality into those two sub-terms, Logic and Reason. So let's examine..

For logic, we have the laws of logic, which are absolute, immaterial and unchanging. Yet the Universe is material and always changing. There is nowhere in nature to point to the laws of logic, yet they clearly exist. I account for these because God is a logical being who is absolute, immaterial and unchanging. So where does logic come from and how is it absolute? I don't see how they can be accounted for in a secular view.

To analyse reason, I'll just ask a simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

As far as "TRUTH" with a capital T, I hold that science and all inductive methods have ZERO claim to it, and because of the way I define knowledge (as true, certain, belief) also does not expand human knowledge. So, as an element of rationality, I don't not hold it to any great merit of truth. It is GREAT at understanding the universe as humans can experience reality, but only so far, and only so much, and never in the fullest nature as to be consistent with the word "Truth". ( Turns out, I don't explain that I believe in truth only as far as A priori methods can show them, I think any attempt to say A priori isn't a good way to think about things results in you using A priori logical statements to show it isn't true, thus thwarting the objection)

Now here is the elusive question, and the one that plagued me as an agnostic. As pontius pilate asked Jesus, what is truth? Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and He meant this in a literal sense. The way, is in, the only true path for all human beings. The truth, because He is the Creator and Logos. The life, because He is the source of life. Bold claims, to be sure. He claimed to be the foundation of all foundations.

Is there is a truth? Well, it is true that I typed those words "is there a truth?". It is absolutely true even though only you and I know about it (and anyone else reading this). If the record were destroyed and the witnesses were gone it would still be true. If the Universe were destroyed it would still be true. Nothing can ever change that I wrote those words; the truth is the truth. Even if someone went back in time and stopped me from doing it, it still definitely happened. So, absolute truth exists.

The question is, how can you know what it is? You can know the things you have done, and seen, to a limited extent, but beyond that it gets progressively vague. Senses deceive, and so do people. How do you know anything for sure? Well there are really only two alternatives.

To know the absolute truth beyond a doubt you would either need to be omnipotent, or, you would need to receive revelation from an omnipotent being. So you would either need to be God, or God would need to tell you directly what is going on. Everything else is just speculation. It is like a person living in a pitch black room, who goes round and round inside of it, and thinks it is the whole Universe, until God opens the door from the outside.

Side question..what do you think of this statement?: God is perfect.

I don't know that I have ever heard a good explanation about free will. I should point out, that even in my Christianity, I was a 5 point Calvinist. I never have accepted that this quazi-random thing called free will exists in any way, shape or form. In the end, it doesn't even matter, either.

I agree that this is outside our control, of course. My assertion is that it is impossible unless it is something that is given to us. There is no meaningful free will in a determinalistic Universe, which I think is the inevitable conclusion of materialism. Personally, I believe that God controls everything, but in regards to love, we have the choice to love Him or not.

Let me expand why I think that. For me, I don't have the Theological problem you do. I don't have to explain goodness or evil in terms of human choices.

It is pretty simple theologically. Only God is good. Therefore, everything God tells us to do is good. Everything God tells us not to do is evil. The only way to know goodness is to obey God, because we canot obtain to it on our own.

I don't even have to believe in good or evil, or even if I do think it is a "something that exists", I HAVE to remain agnostic about it in the same way I do God, reason being is there isn't really a reasonable way to go about forming the groups "Good" and "Evil". Is it good to tie my shoe laces, or to just slip my feet right inside that shoe! It seems that most of life would either be impossible to show its good or evil value, but even more problematic, why and how!?

You may not define it but I submit that in your conscience you know what good and evil is, and that you live as if they do in fact absolutely exist. It is an intellectual quagmire if there is no moral lawgiver; it is all relative and meaningless. Yet, the whole world acts as if there is an absolute moral standard, and our conscience tells us that, before our intellect kicks in, that some things are right and others wrong. That isn't just wrong to murder someone, it is absolutely wrong. The guilt we have from past misdeeds tells us that we have trangsressed a moral law. So if there is no good and evil, how strange is it that we live as though there is? It makes no sense unless there is an absolute moral law, and in turn, a moral lawgiver.

We can see this problem in Christendom itself, there is no "one way" to be a christian! That was ALWAYS problematic for me. If truth was as easy as being in the bible, then everyone, and I mean everyone would be the same type of Christian. It would be the logical outcome of such a perfect and holy notion of good and evil. So either Christendom is in my same problematic position of not knowing the difference between good or evil, or if that even exists at all; if it wasn't some problem we created to increase the suffering of the world (like good ol Man Schopenhauer though!)

It isn't as black and white as all of that. Remember in the bible that God did non-stop miracles in front of the Israelites and they rebelled against Him anyway. Remember that Jesus did even more miracles and they ended up crucifying Him. So, the problem isn't with God, or His Word, it is with human beings. If you put God on the right and Satan on the left, and you lined up all of the Christians in the world between them, their placement in the line would be determined by what percentage of their heart they had given to God. Whatever percentage they haven't given to God is run by the world and their desires, and the more true this is, the less able they are to interpret the holy scriptures. It is the reality of sin that has created all of these different interpretations and denominations. There is one truth, and billions of Christians imperfectly interpreting it. The fact is, only Jesus was able to lead the perfect life of obedience to the Father. We all have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into all truth, but only if we listen to Him.

So in other words, being the result of atoms bouncing around off each other degrading the absolute randomness of choices I make isn't something I have a problem with personally. As it is, my own existence, even if planned by nature or God or even myself, still remains so far beyond my ability to grasp at even day to day instances of any particular situation that even that; planned or random I have no real guess as to the goings on of that day. Perhaps if I was an all powerful God, with absolute knowledge of all factors of existence and all properties of existence I might find reality a little tedious.

It is much bigger than our limited awareness, that is for sure. What I have learned is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Try eliminating that word from your vocabulary for a few days. You might notice some very interesting things.

As to the quote, I think it a little dubious. For instance, it relates thoughts to fizz of a soda. That is fine, but they also have a comparison to HOW similar they are to each other. For instance, 1 and 2 are both numbers. There isn't really a problem with them both being numbers at the same time, its a party yall, all the numbers get to the dance floor! However, even in their exact "numberness" of being all "numbers", they still have differences to each other, even while still being numbers! So while the "one"ness of 1 being one is still just a number, a number which is a number exactly the same way 2 is, their is also a difference between 1 and 2, and it is inherit to the way that both exist. In the same way that A=A, A!=(!A). The basic laws of identity and contraindication. 1 may be of some degree of similarity to 2, and likewise, Fizz to thinking. But there is also a degree of separation. One could say the same, on a high level argument, that both smell and touch are of the "Same" physical representation of an object. So while the object they correspond to has a oneness with itself, the individual properties of its oneness are unique and independent. And not just via the method of induction, but it is AUTOMATICALLY apparent and true that things that are different are not the same. So the comparison of the atomic nature of both fizz and thoughts is ABSOLUTELY true, but so are there differences. It is those absolute differences that I, personally, use in my own method of philosophy which I borrowed and adapted from my limited understanding of Phenomenology.

I think you kind of missed the point here. It is just an analogy to show that if our thoughts are just the product of some brew of chemicals and electricity, and you and I just happened to get different chemicals, then your doubt and my faith have nothing to do with what we believe. They are just the natural result of how we are assembled and nothing else.

As to the last assumption of my beliefs, I actually don't have the same material requirement for existence. I find the views of George Berkeley, that we all exist in the minds of God, as the one of MANY, near infinite, plausible methods we could exist metaphysically.

Sure, there are many ways to imagine this, and I've heard quite a few. I think the only two meaningful questions concerning this is..is there a God, and if so, has He introduced Himself?

One might also mockingly bring up the idea of a spaghetti monster, but I have ALWAYS found that to be extremely uncharitable with the way "NORMAL" theory is crafted.

The FSM has no explanatory power. You don't get a Universe from flying pasta. The only workable theory is one that could explain all the meaningful questions that we have. I find all of those answers in Jesus Christ.

My current understanding of the universe certainly allows for a God, in fact, I find myself leaning that way more than my atheist brethren. It was, for me, certain, though, that the God of the Christian variety didn't satisfy all the problems that I had.

What problems do you feel He fell short on?

So my metaphysical undemanding doesn't have to find its roots in matter. I don't hold that matter is all there is, or that matter ISN'T all there is. I think there is not enough evidence to say either way. Moreover, I don't know that such evidence could even exist, which is why I am not only atheist, but also agnostic.

Ahh, but if you're agnostic you cannot be an atheist. If you don't know if the evidence could exist, then necessarily you don't know that it couldn't exist either. To be a true agnostic is to have no bias in either direction.

I think we are most likely creatures that are good at doing what we do, and truth...absolute truth, isn't really valuable as far as not getting eaten by a tiger is concerned.

It would be very valuable if God could help you avoid the tiger.

As such, I think humans have very few tools for understanding truth, from a Gods eye view perspective. It is the great arrogance of man that most cranktankerous arguments between scientists and religious people have with one another. We really do have more in common than different...we really have no clue what's going on. 7000 years of human discovery, great monuments of technology and thought, and yet, the truth is still as elusive as it ever was.

As I was saying above, without being God, or having direct revelation from God, we are only chasing our own tails. If there is no God we will never know how it all began or what is really going on. What I believe is that there is a God who has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. That we can know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Hopefully, this huge wall of text has some merit and value, for I have written it while ill. I hope I have portrayed my message without the normal anger and hate associated with such inquiries. Of note, such pleasant conversations are truly all I exist for, if not for them, my life is worthless. As a person, I hope only to accomplish knowledge, and the pass that knowledge on to others. Nothing else really matters to me at all. Which is why, at times, I have lashed out at those undeserving because of the deep relationship I have with this type of endeavor. Imm'a let this fly now, and hope the typos don't completely obscure it, but I need to sleep.

I have enjoyed and appreciated your conversation. It certainly is a lot to chew on. I enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions; they have always been my bread and butter. I also appreciate that you are strictly concerned with knowledge, and how committed you are to it. I wholeheartedly approve of your endevour. Truth is what matters to me, second to love. When I was agnostic, I tied my brain into a million knots searching for it, and when I became aware there is a spirit, the mystery deepened 1000 fold. I feel I have found what truth is, which is the love of God, and I hope to share as much of that with you as I can.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK

@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.