On January 17 2012 12:21 Syntax wrote:
And you posting those 'sound' videos and saying "they're just creepy" makes it obvious that you actually believe there's a possibility that something supernatural probably has something to do with it and i'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that someone like baal is going to laugh hysterically of how stupid that assumption would be. (as would i)
<3 Bill hicks
Supernatural is defined as something that science cannot explain. Science in 2012 is far away from explaining everything in the Universe. So saying that you and Baal would laugh at something that is unexplained by modern day science would basically mean that you think that science has explained everything. And you talk to me about logical fallacies and open-mindedness? There was a time when people thought that the Earth is flat and saying that the Earth is round was supernatural. People like you were laughing at Galileo Galilee and proven dead wrong and are now considered total retards for having a super closed-minded view of the world. That is why you and Baal would be considered retards years from now by the masses, while now only a few (like myself) would consider you retarded.
And for the record, it's good that you have assumed that my assumption is that the sounds are supernatural. I also don't know who the last NBA champion was. Would you assume I think there is something supernatural about it? It's great to think of assumptions as facts.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On January 17 2012 02:39 D_smart_S wrote:
Has anyone here heard any of the strange sounds coming from nowhere? There is an increasing number of reports of such sounds in the sky with no apparent reason for them. From Guatemala through America to Mexico and in many other countries. Nobody has any idea what those sounds are lol.
Did you hear about the part where opening the sound tracks in Audacity reveals all the unusual
sounds to be added in post-production due to obvious tells such as having no delay compared to the rest of the real audio,
being much purer than a recording camera microphone could ever produce,
having the exact soundtrack inserted as some other allegedly mysterious sound videos have inserted et cetera et cetera?
Did you saw that commentators and baseball players reacted live during one of those sounds? Oh wait, they actually told them that they would insert those sounds at that exact time so the baseball players were like "now is the time to act like we hear something".
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On January 17 2012 02:39 D_smart_S wrote:
Has anyone here heard any of the strange sounds coming from nowhere? There is an increasing number of reports of such sounds in the sky with no apparent reason for them. From Guatemala through America to Mexico and in many other countries. Nobody has any idea what those sounds are lol.
Did you hear about the part where opening the sound tracks in Audacity reveals all the unusual
sounds to be added in post-production due to obvious tells such as having no delay compared to the rest of the real audio,
being much purer than a recording camera microphone could ever produce,
having the exact soundtrack inserted as some other allegedly mysterious sound videos have inserted et cetera et cetera?
Did you see that commentators and baseball players reacted live during one of those sounds? Oh wait, they actually told them that they would insert those sounds at that exact time so the baseball players were like "now is the time to act like we hear something".
I'm not saying there are never ever strange sounds, I'm not saying there are never ever occasions where
not everyone is perfectly aware of the origin of every single sound he hears, that is an unreasonable expectation.
Your ridiculous "I want to believe" bullshit is so tiring that I don't even want to be a discussion about this with you.
On January 17 2012 14:33 taco wrote:
Your ridiculous"I want to believe" bullshit is so tiring that I don't even want to be a discussion about this with you.
THESE SOUNDS AREN'T EVEN UNIFORMED.
I am happy that you are making things up. Your interpretation of my posts and my actual posts are 2 very different things. All I wanted to point out is that I don't know what those sounds are and that I find them to be something I don't hear everyday. And you went apeshit lol. The way i am attacked only tells me that I have made people go out of their comfort zone and question some of their beliefs even without trying as with the sound post lol.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
Last edit: 17/01/2012 15:47
1
terrybunny19240 United States. Jan 17 2012 15:50. Posts 13829
Unfortunately you are incorrect, the reason you're being shouted at by this point is because you insist that your views are based on logic and evidence when in fact your views are vaguely stated, rambling, and incoherent, while being delivered with a pompous attitude of superior understanding.
Hope that makes it clear!
Last edit: 17/01/2012 15:51
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 17 2012 16:07. Posts 1929
On January 15 2012 15:09 Zorglub wrote:
Did anyone ever think about the concept of interpretation? Words, symbols, numbers, situations, concepts, forms, metaphors etc. are all subject to your personal interpretation, they depend upon your internal knowledge and the ways your brain (or mind) associates these concepts and abstract thoughts with your own subjective knowledge and experience. In this sense, every religion may be true to a certain individual, because it all depends on their own subjective knowledge, experience and interpretation.
This is a cool topic and stuff but I am not sure if it applies when people start trying to proclaim universal truths
also I think the whole point of the scientific method is to remove this subjectivity in as universally accessible way as possible (ie the goals of being verifiable, repeatable in experimentation). The kicker for science is that if something is legitimately confirmed in a scientific way, it ought to be universal insofar as we're (we're = human beings, without super powers) currently capable of understanding.
falsifiability is completely different from confirmation, you can disprove a scientific theory with contradicting evidence but you can never confirm a theory with supporting evidence.
huh, I know, I was trying to cover that with, "ought to be universal insofar as we're.. currently capable of understanding." I probably could of worded it to be, ".. insofar as its currently understood according to available evidence."
but I was thinking too much about D_smart_S coming in and pointing out that schizophrenics can see (real) things that the rest of us simply don't have access to lolol
I think we're agreeing here?
no
On January 16 2012 10:57 Night2o1 wrote:
The kicker for science is that if something is legitimately confirmed in a scientific way, it ought to be universal insofar as we're (we're = human beings, without super powers) currently capable of understanding.
everything in this sentence is wrong
Yo I don't think blatant trolling is what we're looking for here, all this looks like is that you were crushed so hard that you can't even comprehend a reply except for whimpering, feeble, "no.. no... plzzz stop hurting me"'s
IF I'm wrong in my understanding of the topic I'm happy to entertain other points of view.
just for you i found this ghetto ass intro to what happened in science in the past century, on first glance it looks ok
Most would agree nothing in science can be legitimately confirmed. If I have a theory that says all swans are white, one black swan will legitimately disprove my theory (though in reality almost never, the theorist will just add postulates that work around the inconsistency), but I can find a billion white swans and my theory will still never be scientifically true. There's really nothing "universal" about scientific theories, each one has its own specific conditions. In terms of acceptance, I guess newtonian physics is "universally" accepted in western science. Science is often a shithole just like any other discipline especially the further you stray away from hard sciences like physics. I've noticed a lot of people who participate in these arguments have this immaculate conception of science that everyone abandoned long ago, you guys are unknowingly, logical positivists, who are basically a group of kids who gets shit on repeatedly to the point that almost all of them took their ball and went home. But the general perspective of positivism, if there's such a thing, will always remain legitimate, and has deep-rooted philosophical foundations that are hard to contend. All of this is an extremely general and shitty summary of hundreds of years of ideas, but it's better than nothing and really talking about anything worthwhile on the internet is impossible simply because it would take too long.
Last edit: 17/01/2012 16:12
1
waga United Kingdom. Jan 17 2012 16:15. Posts 2375
I would probably enjoy a thread like this if D_dumb_S was banned
1
terrybunny19240 United States. Jan 17 2012 16:31. Posts 13829
I'm aware of Popper, I'm aware of the way that confirmation cannot prove something to be true lol. If you read what was posted carefully you'll see that I didn't say anything about universal truths, but was focused on describing the principle that the scientific method is designed to allow people to start from certain basic philosophical assumptions
(we can all touch this object, we agree it occupies a certain space, we can see that this object reflects certain spectrums of light, we can each feel that it is heavy to lift; we will say that it is made of Matter, we will say it has Volume, that it has a certain Color, that is possesses Mass, we will define it as a Table)
and from these shared assumptions to begin collecting information and forming ideas about the world around us.
I don't get what we're even talking about at this point except that working from the evidence, based on our shared assumptions, there is no evidence for any supernatural influence on our surroundings
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 17 2012 16:58. Posts 1929
ok cuz the way you were throwing around words like universal truth and legitimately confirm made it sound like you had no idea what you were talking about, glad you are aware of popper.
On January 17 2012 14:33 taco wrote:
Your ridiculous"I want to believe" bullshit is so tiring that I don't even want to be a discussion about this with you.
THESE SOUNDS AREN'T EVEN UNIFORMED.
I am happy that you are making things up. Your interpretation of my posts and my actual posts are 2 very different things. All I wanted to point out is that I don't know what those sounds are and that I find them to be something I don't hear everyday. And you went apeshit lol. The way i am attacked only tells me that I have made people go out of their comfort zone and question some of their beliefs even without trying as with the sound post lol.
Talking to you is like talking to an extreme fundamentalist, and it's fucking irritating. But entertaining, and lets people release their anger towards you, so your kind of positive to society.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On January 17 2012 16:36 uiCk wrote: Talking to you is like talking to an extreme fundamentalist, and it's fucking irritating. But entertaining, and lets people release their anger towards you, so your kind of positive to society.
If we make that minor change in formatting I concur.
Hey idiots, listen to Joe Rogan say that everything is ridiculous.
Baal : Buddhism is stupid
Loco : No it's not because this guy lit himself on fire
D_Smart : Buddhism and quantum physics are deeeeeeply related (this statement is so general it lacks any meaning)(and you dont even expand on it, which you never do on any of your ideas)
Baal : No it's not, because sarcastic remark to imply thinking so would be idiotic without saying why.
Some of this is interesting and I'm sure all of you are intelligent but some of the shit you say is a waste of time
On January 17 2012 04:57 D_smart_S wrote:
nothing can be proven to you. Your firewall is impenetrable. How would you comment on my two videos from the 10th or 11th page (the man and the woman).
Let me guess: Suddenly upon awakening an incredible implanted false memory was encoded in their brains for absolutely no fucking reason giving the illusion of experience.
If you read my post you would have noticed that i mentioned that people before dying release great quantities of DMT in their brain.
Also anecdotal evidence is never proof of anything, if it were every nutcase saying aliens kidnapped him has evidence it happened, moron.
I think the way this thread is going down confirms what I said :
On January 16 2012 07:43 dafcnz wrote:
[...]you'll never convince them. The evidence has been there for too long, if they could muster up the intellect, the courage and curiosity necessary to understand, they would have jumped the fence a while ago[...]
On January 16 2012 22:15 Loco wrote:
That's my point though. That is not Buddhism. You don't "follow" in Buddhism, since it is a religion that doesn't require faith: it advocates knowledge only. You don't "blindly follow" when it comes to a practice like meditation. You practice it, and if it gives you benefits, it didn't require you believing or following anything.
Of course, I'm not saying it's impossible to be a fanatical Buddhist, but generally, Buddhists are the last people you'll have annoying you to follow their path.
If a monk can self-immolate without flinching, then he's cultivated something that Joe Rogan's "free mind" couldn't do, and in that light, he's the one who looks really, really absurd by making some stab at what is clearly a religion that can develop more exceptional people than he is and will ever be.
So here, for good measure (even tho most have seen it already) I raise your Joe Rogan, whamm:
And cretare christians would get eating by lions and not flinch, and muslims would fly into a building and not flinch.
Afterall Buddist believe in reincarnation so where is the value in that, same with every martyr, there is no value in throwing your life away if you believe you will be 72 virgins, in heaven or an eagle
You are really naive on this topic, Baal. My girlfriend told me the same thing, funnily enough.
You're not understanding this at all. There is not a single man of faith who could do what this Buddhist monk has done. Beliefs only go so far. The strength of a belief cannot make you not utter a sound and not move an inch while your body is in flame for 10 minutes. This man had accomplished something exceptional: like the Buddha, he was self-realized; he was no longer attached to the illusion of identity like we all are. And don't tell me this is religious mumbo-jumbo when the first things you should have learned from the findings of neuroscience is that we have no free will and our experience of being an individual is clearly an illusion of the mind.
A Buddhist monk who has realized himself will no longer be reincarnated. That is the goal of the Buddhist. There was nothing left for him to do in this world but to serve others, and this was the necessary thing for him to do. He didn't "throw his life away", he accomplished the goal: the end of suffering and the end of samsara, and wanted others to be able to do the same without being oppressed. It was an act of compassion, nothing like martyrdom. Notice that he is the one who is composed while burning alive, while the others are wailing around.
And Bill Hicks was not religious but he was driven by a religious impulse: self-discovery/self-transcendence was huge for him and he came to the same conclusion that the Eastern philosophies teach. It wasn't Bertrand Russel who taught him that everything is illusory:
He owes everything that he became after his alcoholism to the insights gotten from psylocybin, which basically only serves in replicating religious experience easily.
Wrong.
Buddism is retarded, simply not as retarded as western religions, i doubt any atheist will say they are equally retarded, however simply believing in Karma and reincarnation is stupid no matter how you see it.
It doesnt matter if the monk has managed such self control, he is still a fool who believes in karma and reincarnation, and i would be my bankroll that many fanatics along history could suffer an equal death without making a single sound, obviously not your average televangelist, but some saints who were a bit more introspective.
So i agree buddhist monks are admirable in many ways, but that doesnt imply that Buddism isnt stupid and wrong.
And stop fucking using the word religious wrong like the stupid Suami you quoted, you dont get to redefine the word, Hicks didnt have a religious impulse, and drugs o not serve to replicate the religious experience, drugs simply alter the way the brain works, allowing you to see things from other perspectives to put it in some way, stop attributing any kind of truth seeking, altered consciousness and understanding of relaity was RELIGION, that is not religion.
Loco you seem to cling to beliefs because of its use, you think Buddism is great because it allows people to do X or Y, you ignore the fact that it teaches absurd irrational things like karma, you so believe in things for their use, not if they are truth, and quoting Russel: "there is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty about believing things for their use and not if they are true"
: nice posts even tho I don't agree with all of it, learned some stuff
I read that chapter 7 essay, the argument appears to me as, 'since (typically) everything which recognizes its existence wants to continue to exist, none of us is an individual/unique.' Why does acknowledging that everyone else has the same desire to exist strip us of our individuality rather than simply enhance our respect for one another? I also don't understand how it implies a universal soul/being, which I think is what you're describing in your above post, to me it seems enough to acknowledge that there were, are, and will be eternal, unending processes occurring in the "universe" -- but nothing more.
(there is a bit more to the essay but lemme know if/how I'm totally missing the point)
You start way too late. To understand the argument you need to understand the earlier point made for Schopenhauer's Will as being 'our true being' early on (I'll quote it at the end). But in the place you are quoting, he's saying that every manifestation of the will wants to exist, so it is the will itself that seeks to exist, and therefore it strips us of our individuality, since it's all temporary phenomenon manifesting from one eternal unity (the will). "I— I— I want to exist you alone do not say this, but everything, absolutely everything, that has only a vestige of consciousness. Consequently this desire of yours is just that which is not individual but which is common to all without distinction. It does not proceed from individuality, but from existence in general[...]"
A bit unrelated but it makes me think of this one popular quote that you've probably heard which says: "you are absolutely unique... just like everyone else!" Impossible to deny that you are indeed unique in every way possible, and occupy a unique place in space and time... and yet other people are the same.
Phil. Transcendental knowledge is that which, going beyond the boundary of possible experience, endeavours to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves; while immanent knowledge keeps itself within the boundary of possible experience, therefore it can only apply to phenomena. As an individual, with your death there will be an end of you. But your individuality is not your true and final being, indeed it is rather the mere expression of it; it is not the thing-in-itself but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time, and accordingly has both a beginning and an end. Your being in itself, on the contrary, knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor the limits of a given individuality; hence no individuality can be without it, but it is there in each and all. So that, in the first sense, after death you become nothing; in the second, you are and remain everything. That is why I said that after death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to give you a more exact answer to your question than this and to be brief at the same time; but here we have undoubtedly another contradiction; this is because your life is in time and your immortality in eternity. Hence your immortality may be said to be something that is indestructible and yet has no endurance — which is again contradictory, you see. This is what happens when transcendental knowledge is brought within the boundary of immanent knowledge; in doing this some sort of violence is done to the latter, since it is used for things for which it was not intended.
He's being playful with the fictional socratic dialogue, which is at the end of the actual essay that would help you understand it more clearly, but I can't find it online.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 17 2012 12:21 Syntax wrote:
And you posting those 'sound' videos and saying "they're just creepy" makes it obvious that you actually believe there's a possibility that something supernatural probably has something to do with it and i'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that someone like baal is going to laugh hysterically of how stupid that assumption would be. (as would i)
<3 Bill hicks
Supernatural is defined as something that science cannot explain. Science in 2012 is far away from explaining everything in the Universe. So saying that you and Baal would laugh at something that is unexplained by modern day science would basically mean that you think that science has explained everything. And you talk to me about logical fallacies and open-mindedness? There was a time when people thought that the Earth is flat and saying that the Earth is round was supernatural. People like you were laughing at Galileo Galilee and proven dead wrong and are now considered total retards for having a super closed-minded view of the world. That is why you and Baal would be considered retards years from now by the masses, while now only a few (like myself) would consider you retarded.
And for the record, it's good that you have assumed that my assumption is that the sounds are supernatural. I also don't know who the last NBA champion was. Would you assume I think there is something supernatural about it? It's great to think of assumptions as facts.
Shut the fuck up and post evidence of the Soul
You claimed the soul existed and said you would post evidence, you dont get to drop the subjects and discuss other things, post evidence or concede that there is no evidence that the soul exist and that you believe things there are no evidence of
This is like the 6th thread I just must post this picture in.
If it turns out this guy admits to being a non-insane person simply trolling I'm going
to be both extremely happy and extremely impressed at the same time.
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 17 2012 19:43. Posts 1929
On January 17 2012 18:13 dafcnz wrote:
I think the way this thread is going down confirms what I said :
On January 16 2012 07:43 dafcnz wrote:
[...]you'll never convince them. The evidence has been there for too long, if they could muster up the intellect, the courage and curiosity necessary to understand, they would have jumped the fence a while ago[...]
if people had the curiosity, intellect, courage to understand they would respect the powers of myth, creativity and irrationality in science more.
Contact Users: 666 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 19:49
,
,
,
,
,
,
