Sorry. I don't wish to believe in the Christian God or in any god.
Let me put it this way: an ornithologist studies birds; he does not wish to be a bird. ...
No, you came here to use Christians as research subjects for your books, not for a sense of community, nor to explore ideas with which you disagree. I must say that it feels mildly insulting and exploitative, but at least you were open about your purpose on the Ship.
I agree.
The Ship is not the place to do this. This is a real community (find out about Miss Molly) not a research site. If you don’t intend to treat it as such then go somewhere else. If you want to stay treat it and us with respect.
"...What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh..."
Well, that's certainly profound. I don't think it really addresses the question, but it has a nice beat.
In that case our commitment to rationality has to be provisional.
Yes. Rationality is preferred because it has a pretty good track record of providing answers and explanations when compared to irrationality, which has a track record pretty close to random chance. It's not perfect, however, and can fall prey to our own expectations and lack of experience. For example:
There has been eternal infinity of creation to now. There has always been time; tock following tick following tock.
That's rational.
Implicit here is the idea that time happens relatively uniformly, because that's how we typically experience it. This is because we don't have everyday experience with moving at relativistic speeds, otherwise it would seem "rational" to us that time moves differently depending our relative velocity, or that things which happen in sequence in one frame of reference (e.g. "tock following tick") may happen simultaneously (toick) or in reverse order (tick following tock) from a different frame of reference.
...
I'm fully (HAH!) aware of the relativity of simultaneity and that there is no such thing as objective reality (so there HAS to be a b(ol)lock(s) universe!!!), but on the greatest scale, infinity from eternity, time happens uniformly, state is steady. That's rational. I like 'toick', what about 'kciot'?
A word given by humans to the emotional reward programmed into us by evolution intended to get the male to stick around and help in the raising of progeny.
Wow. If anyone was unconvinced by RooK's summation, it really is clear now. You are an idiot.
Probably pleasant for @SusanDoris not to be the dumbest person on this thread anymore.
Apart from @MPaul who was too much of a scaredy-cat to stick around.
Wella bigthank you for that laugh out loud this morning! There was one yesterday too! (LOL smiley required here)
I'm happy to be in your corner of Hell with Colin Smith. Dumb goes to dumb eh? The desperate egotistical loveless cowardly unartistic anti-dialectical irrational anti-intellectual lack of imagination on love and art as evolved material emergent (at best) constructs is too far above us obviously. We must be missing something.
I can think of at least three ways in which science would be unable to determine the future of a system: quantum uncertainty; chaos; and the halting problem.
@Colin Smith surely trying to convince us all of the wrongness of religion risks interfering with your observations and is therefore unscientific (unless you are trying to write about a Christian who sees the light and gives up on belief in God).
I can think of at least three ways in which science would be unable to determine the future of a system: quantum uncertainty; chaos; and the halting problem.
I do not know about any of those, but do you think that science does profess to know the answers to those problems? Or do they say, when asked, 'well, we don't know, although we are trying to find ways to find out.'
Susan, the claim seemed to be made that any question that science poses can be answered, in time.
I do not think this the case, and gave three reasons to suggest that quite well posed problems, in the domain of science, are intractable.
That is too bold a claim. I was thinking of consciousness, about which there are various hypotheses, but there is also the interesting "mysterian" idea, that not only do we not understand consciousness, but we cannot. Well, that also seems too strong a claim. But at any rate, "don't know" is perfectly respectable. The Mysterians were a rock group, so how groovy is that. It is applied to various areas, see for example Nagel's famous article, "What is it like to be a bat?" Although you can argue that this is not a scientific query.
It reminds me of the old joke that science always gets it wrong. Well, that's what powers its developments. It's being able to be wrong that is crucial, falsifiable in other words. If I construct a hypothesis, it should generate predictions which are testable. My favourite example are quasars, about which there were many hypotheses and predictions, that failed.
Umm...discussion is kind of what the Ship's for......so if you think/hope that your Wise Posts™ elsewhere might not provoke discussion, why the f**k are you bothering?
Umm...discussion is kind of what the Ship's for......so if you think/hope that your Wise Posts™ elsewhere might not provoke discussion, why the f**k are you bothering?
I hope they provoke discussion about matters of use to me. My thread on "other gods" is a case in point.
The ship is not here to have its collective brains picked to help you. It is here to discuss and to be a community. If you genuinely want to discuss then go ahead. If you just want info for your own project go away.
The ship is not here to have its collective brains picked to help you. It is here to discuss and to be a community. If you genuinely want to discuss then go ahead. If you just want info for your own project go away.
I will stay for as long as people are happy to help me. I don't think it's for you to lay down what the Ship is for or what qualifies someone for membership.
I would add, I admire Colin's staying power, and willingness to engage in calm manner, especially in the hostile environment of Hell. I don't think it's as clearcut as everyone joins (or should join) to be part of a community - I suspect we all join with slightly different motives, often unclear at first, and at least partly fueled by curiosity. And it's only as we stay and chat and get to know people do we decide that hey, maybe this is a community, maybe I like it, and maybe I can be part of it. But people differ hugely in that, and in how much they share, and that's okay.
I would add, I admire Colin's staying power, and willingness to engage in calm manner, especially in the hostile environment of Hell. I don't think it's as clearcut as everyone joins (or should join) to be part of a community - I suspect we all join with slightly different motives, often unclear at first, and at least partly fueled by curiosity. And it's only as we stay and chat and get to know people do we decide that hey, maybe this is a community, maybe I like it, and maybe I can be part of it. But people differ hugely in that, and in how much they share, and that's okay.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
Yeahhhh. Seconded. They can't actually engage. They (Hi Dark Knight! Rook!!) actually lack courage, imagination and intellect. As stage performers. I'm in the cheap seats me. Speak as I find. I expect better of them. He has the dialectical advantage, fuck off doesn't. It's a Pythonesque, bullying tacit admission of failure.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
I'm not telling him to go away. He is dumb though, and I'm saying that. I haven't seen anything interesting or provocative, most of the things he spouts have been said here many times before. Like SusanDoris, I'm learning nothing from him.
Lord what I wouldn't give to have a discussion about faith and Science with someone who understands the basics of what Science is.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
I'm not telling him to go away. He is dumb though, and I'm saying that. I haven't seen anything interesting or provocative, most of the things he spouts have been said here many times before. Like SusanDoris, I'm learning nothing from him.
Lord what I wouldn't give to have a discussion about faith and Science with someone who understands the basics of what Science is.
Wel., it would be interesting to have a sentence or two to tell us from your point of view, to at least give us a start. Isn't the derivation of the word science a Greek word, with a meaning of knowledge?
Yes people do come here out of curiosity and yes there is a strong community element. Yes you don’t need say you are joining that community. I don’t say who comes and goes. I know all that, I am hardly a noob. I have been on the ship longer than many on here now. Colin is not really here to discuss and take part. He is here to research a project. To research for his writing. That may not be against the rules of the ship but is not following the spirit of the ship either. If I am wrong I am more than willing to put my hand up and apologise. I am not unreasonable.
The desperate egotistical loveless cowardly unartistic anti-dialectical irrational anti-intellectual lack of imagination on love and art as evolved material emergent (at best) constructs is too far above us obviously.
Careful there that you don’t use your whole month’s allotment of adjectives up at one time.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
I think people are reacting to what Colin Smith has very honestly said (kudos for that) about being here to research and pick brains, which some see as at odds with the Ship’s ethos at best highly disrespectful at worst. I don’t think it’s surprising that some react that way, especially when he says things like:
I will stay for as long as people are happy to help me.
That hardly strikes me as wanting to actually engage in discussion; frankly, I do find it a bit off-putting.
But it seems to me that it’s an easy nut to crack—if (generic) you finds his reason for being here annoying or disrespectful, or if you find his posts lacking in substantive discussion, just ignore him.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
Yeahhhh. Seconded. They can't actually engage. They (Hi Dark Knight! Rook!!) actually lack courage, imagination and intellect. As stage performers. I'm in the cheap seats me. Speak as I find. I expect better of them. He has the dialectical advantage, fuck off doesn't. It's a Pythonesque, bullying tacit admission of failure.
We've engaged over and over again, Martin, you cretin. Given just about everything you post anywhere on the Ship requires some kind of Rosetta Stone to make any sense of - which only your opaque "mind" has access to - this is pretty rich. Your posting style is the opposite of engagment.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
I'm not telling him to go away. He is dumb though, and I'm saying that. I haven't seen anything interesting or provocative, most of the things he spouts have been said here many times before. Like SusanDoris, I'm learning nothing from him.
Lord what I wouldn't give to have a discussion about faith and Science with someone who understands the basics of what Science is.
"...What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Oh baby, don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh..."
Well, that's certainly profound. I don't think it really addresses the question, but it has a nice beat.
Umm...discussion is kind of what the Ship's for......so if you think/hope that your Wise Posts™ elsewhere might not provoke discussion, why the f**k are you bothering?
I hope they provoke discussion about matters of use to me. My thread on "other gods" is a case in point.
...I think people are reacting to what Colin Smith has very honestly said (kudos for that) about being here to research and pick brains, which some see as at odds with the Ship’s ethos at best highly disrespectful at worst. I don’t think it’s surprising that some react that way, especially when he says things like:
I will stay for as long as people are happy to help me.
That hardly strikes me as wanting to actually engage in discussion; frankly, I do find it a bit off-putting. ...
Exactly. I am not here to help him do research so that some of us can show up, regurgitated, in his stories of pathetic unbelieving Christians.
Most writers, I suspect, exploit people in some way. I'm a journalist; I help people get their stories out - but sometimes they may not like my conclusions. At least they don't have to worry about turning up somewhere in fictionalized form.
I am not telling Mr. Smith to go away. It would be nice, though, if he were to engage in more genuine fashion, and respect what the Ship has grown to be.
I am not telling Mr. Smith to go away. It would be nice, though, if he were to engage in more genuine fashion, and respect what the Ship has grown to be.
Let's pause, and take a look at the title and genesis of this thread...
Oh, right. Was that perhaps something that felt important to address in a direct manner? I felt so.
What did we end up discussing instead? Fucking bullshit about morons who think science should be worshipped, but have no actual idea about how science works.
In this context, it was like kneeling down to check on the old neighbor who has fallen down, only to have some kid flash their junk in your face. Maybe they're trying to impress their friends. Maybe they have worries about an unusual-looking growth. Either way, I object to the timing and modality. So, yeah, I told the kid to fuck off. And I still do. Fuck off. Be it to a conversation more appropriate for their well-lotioned grip, or to sob into their Jar-Jar Binks pillow.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
Yeahhhh. Seconded. They can't actually engage. They (Hi Dark Knight! Rook!!) actually lack courage, imagination and intellect. As stage performers. I'm in the cheap seats me. Speak as I find. I expect better of them. He has the dialectical advantage, fuck off doesn't. It's a Pythonesque, bullying tacit admission of failure.
We've engaged over and over again, Martin, you cretin. Given just about everything you post anywhere on the Ship requires some kind of Rosetta Stone to make any sense of - which only your opaque "mind" has access to - this is pretty rich. Your posting style is the opposite of engagment.
How very sad. I was warned off the park I walk through four times a day this morning, with a large 24/7 police station in it, as in half term there's a gang of knife wielding 14 year old Somalis mugging Kafirs. That I understand and must not flaunt my privilege. Same here I suppose.
I find Colin Smith an interesting and provocative discussant. I'm baffled that people keep saying go away/fuck off.
I'm not telling him to go away. He is dumb though, and I'm saying that. I haven't seen anything interesting or provocative, most of the things he spouts have been said here many times before. Like SusanDoris, I'm learning nothing from him.
Lord what I wouldn't give to have a discussion about faith and Science with someone who understands the basics of what Science is.
Well....
I'm not dumb in a rounded and consistent way, though there are plenty of things I know little about. I am a dumb electrician, for example, and even though I do know how to wire a plug the need for that particular skill has pretty much vanished.
Regarding my dumbness in matters of science, I concede I only know as much as a consumer of science journalism and TV documentaries knows but that seems to me to be sufficient to furnish me with a working knowledge of how the world works, including, incidentally, my explanation for what love is.
Of course, my description of what love is is useless for dealing with the feelings we have for others but as those are wholly subjective and will vary for all of us objective descriptions don't seem to apply. Dealing wholly with the function of love as an evolved behaviour (and how else might an atheist approach it?) the love between two or more humans does seem to have the same function as pair-bonding in animals and that between members of a family group.
You may feel that explanation is inadequate but that feeling is a reflection of how you see the world.
If you want something more poetic to describe love, then I will say that is also that which drives the salmon to the spawning ground.
(This is a general comment.) Whatever aspect of love is being talked about, every one of them is, as far as I know and have learnt, generated in human brains as part of the evolutionary processand has never disappeared. Knowing this does not lessen the strengh, variety, value, or duration of the feelings concerned; nor does it diminish the hurt felt if it is devalued in any way.
How very sad. I was warned off the park I walk through four times a day this morning, with a large 24/7 police station in it, as in half term there's a gang of knife wielding 14 year old Somalis mugging Kafirs. That I understand and must not flaunt my privilege. Same here I suppose.
The similar story in Melbourne (the product of the minds of some of Murdoch's journalists) is of Sudanese gangs terrorising the city.
... I concede I only know as much as a consumer of science journalism and TV documentaries knows but that seems to me to be sufficient to furnish me with a working knowledge of how the world works, including, incidentally, my explanation for what love is.
....
In other words, a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Comments
I agree.
The Ship is not the place to do this. This is a real community (find out about Miss Molly) not a research site. If you don’t intend to treat it as such then go somewhere else. If you want to stay treat it and us with respect.
Can you not?
I'm fully (HAH!) aware of the relativity of simultaneity and that there is no such thing as objective reality (so there HAS to be a b(ol)lock(s) universe!!!), but on the greatest scale, infinity from eternity, time happens uniformly, state is steady. That's rational. I like 'toick', what about 'kciot'?
I'm happy to be in your corner of Hell with Colin Smith. Dumb goes to dumb eh? The desperate egotistical loveless cowardly unartistic anti-dialectical irrational anti-intellectual lack of imagination on love and art as evolved material emergent (at best) constructs is too far above us obviously. We must be missing something.
I do not think this the case, and gave three reasons to suggest that quite well posed problems, in the domain of science, are intractable.
That is too bold a claim. I was thinking of consciousness, about which there are various hypotheses, but there is also the interesting "mysterian" idea, that not only do we not understand consciousness, but we cannot. Well, that also seems too strong a claim. But at any rate, "don't know" is perfectly respectable. The Mysterians were a rock group, so how groovy is that. It is applied to various areas, see for example Nagel's famous article, "What is it like to be a bat?" Although you can argue that this is not a scientific query.
I will continue to post and comment elsewhere on the Ship but will attempt to do so more wisely.
I hope they provoke discussion about matters of use to me. My thread on "other gods" is a case in point.
I will stay for as long as people are happy to help me. I don't think it's for you to lay down what the Ship is for or what qualifies someone for membership.
Thank you.
Thank you. I admit that I am stubborn as hell.
Yeahhhh. Seconded. They can't actually engage. They (Hi Dark Knight! Rook!!) actually lack courage, imagination and intellect. As stage performers. I'm in the cheap seats me. Speak as I find. I expect better of them. He has the dialectical advantage, fuck off doesn't. It's a Pythonesque, bullying tacit admission of failure.
Lord what I wouldn't give to have a discussion about faith and Science with someone who understands the basics of what Science is.
I think people are reacting to what Colin Smith has very honestly said (kudos for that) about being here to research and pick brains, which some see as at odds with the Ship’s ethos at best highly disrespectful at worst. I don’t think it’s surprising that some react that way, especially when he says things like: That hardly strikes me as wanting to actually engage in discussion; frankly, I do find it a bit off-putting.
But it seems to me that it’s an easy nut to crack—if (generic) you finds his reason for being here annoying or disrespectful, or if you find his posts lacking in substantive discussion, just ignore him.
We've engaged over and over again, Martin, you cretin. Given just about everything you post anywhere on the Ship requires some kind of Rosetta Stone to make any sense of - which only your opaque "mind" has access to - this is pretty rich. Your posting style is the opposite of engagment.
Just fuck off and die, hypocrite.
Seconded.
I've not tried. Have you?
In short you're using us. Fuck yourself.
Apples and nuclear bombs. Did you come here with the express intent of using people, treating people as ends to your selfish means?
Because he keeps saying over and over "I'm here to use you as means to my ends, rather than treat you as human beings and ends in your own selves."
Exactly. I am not here to help him do research so that some of us can show up, regurgitated, in his stories of pathetic unbelieving Christians.
Most writers, I suspect, exploit people in some way. I'm a journalist; I help people get their stories out - but sometimes they may not like my conclusions. At least they don't have to worry about turning up somewhere in fictionalized form.
I am not telling Mr. Smith to go away. It would be nice, though, if he were to engage in more genuine fashion, and respect what the Ship has grown to be.
And I'd like a pony.
Oh, right. Was that perhaps something that felt important to address in a direct manner? I felt so.
What did we end up discussing instead? Fucking bullshit about morons who think science should be worshipped, but have no actual idea about how science works.
In this context, it was like kneeling down to check on the old neighbor who has fallen down, only to have some kid flash their junk in your face. Maybe they're trying to impress their friends. Maybe they have worries about an unusual-looking growth. Either way, I object to the timing and modality. So, yeah, I told the kid to fuck off. And I still do. Fuck off. Be it to a conversation more appropriate for their well-lotioned grip, or to sob into their Jar-Jar Binks pillow.
Sweetheart!
Well....
I'm not dumb in a rounded and consistent way, though there are plenty of things I know little about. I am a dumb electrician, for example, and even though I do know how to wire a plug the need for that particular skill has pretty much vanished.
Regarding my dumbness in matters of science, I concede I only know as much as a consumer of science journalism and TV documentaries knows but that seems to me to be sufficient to furnish me with a working knowledge of how the world works, including, incidentally, my explanation for what love is.
Of course, my description of what love is is useless for dealing with the feelings we have for others but as those are wholly subjective and will vary for all of us objective descriptions don't seem to apply. Dealing wholly with the function of love as an evolved behaviour (and how else might an atheist approach it?) the love between two or more humans does seem to have the same function as pair-bonding in animals and that between members of a family group.
You may feel that explanation is inadequate but that feeling is a reflection of how you see the world.
If you want something more poetic to describe love, then I will say that is also that which drives the salmon to the spawning ground.
That is a testable hypothesis. Based on this thread, it seems on the path to being falsified.
The similar story in Melbourne (the product of the minds of some of Murdoch's journalists) is of Sudanese gangs terrorising the city.
In other words, a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
But stay - what a load of pretentious Tosh it seemeth Smith the Sage™ doth spout!
'A working knowledge of how the world works....'
FFS.
What I mean is that it's a good enough answer for someone who has no interest in questions of that nature.
Go and find a Proper Hobby!