You either don't know what faith or rational means. Believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever and for which there is little to no evidence is exactly what irrationality is. Faith fits like a glove there.
There's nothing inherently wrong with something being irrational. Everybody has wishes and hopes, which, a lot of times, are irrational.
The problem is arguing, or even fighting over irrational things, which is a waste of time. By definition, you could never prove to being neither right or wrong.
Rounding up my previous post, that's why fights over irrational ideas are largely driven by fanaticism and emotion.
"Makes no sense" if you're a cuck like blake and can't comprehend anything more than what's in front of your face, like some dude ing your wife, maybe.
But I don't care if you have faith in anything or not; I just mock your utter arrogance on the matter.
woha, back up two steps.
As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.
Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.
That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.
I don't make it a matter to argue with people about their faith or lack of faith or the specifics thereof. I just think it's naive to assume that someone cannot be enriched by faith in something that you cannot prove and to cast yourself above that person. But I get it; there's something to be said for little displays of subtle dominance. You feel better about yourself that way. In a paradoxical way, it's your own sort of faith.
You keep getting upset at me, but refuted none of what I said. "if you're a cuck like blake" is not a empirical argument.
I don't do make-believe. If that's what 'next level' is, yeah, that's the cuckoo level I'm definitely not getting to.
Believing in a creator (not necessarily the creator featured in a specific religion) does make logical sense when you consider the ex nihilo paradox and the probability of the universe being fine-tuned in such a way to harbor our existence (and yes, I'm familiar with the counterarguments to the fine tuned universe argument). It's definitely still a belief based on pure faith since there's no evidence to support intelligent design, but the belief isn't necessarily based on total irrationality. As I said in a prior post, now some thinkers are trying to give intelligent design a "scientific" angle with the simulation argument, which "geniuses" like Elon Monk believe.
SD is rich. It's not a big destination for illegals, tbh. And whites still double the existing latinos. Head to LA and it's a different story.
https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/20...ities-in-2018/
I'll also reiterate the point that the "white" Italian and Irish immigrants ed the crime rate far higher than Latino immigrants. I'm not saying this to suggest any of the ethnicities are inherently less violent than each other, but to illustrate that crime is more a by product of economic status over anything else. Once those ethnicities maturated into American life over a couple of generations, the crime rate of that group fell dramatically. This has already happened to Latinos (see again, Unz report) and is happening with blacks. Yes, I know blacks have been here as long as whites, but their set backs have been a bit more significant. Sure, Irish and Italians were discriminated against, but weren't lynched in public for leering at white women.
Dude, I grew up in a white socal town that was later flooded with poorer minorities. I know what happens. You're either naive or you're trying to BS the wrong person.
It doesn't take faith to be a pathetic cuck like blake; just ask him. This has nothing to do with being upset with you, dude. That whole lazy and desperate thing again, tbh.
Oh, I don't disagree with you. I just feel it more prudent to blame men and not the idea. I mean, the Nazis (and others) took a fairly innocuous scientific idea and used it as justification for all sorts of terrible . Dumbass Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche's ubermensch concept. The Soviet Union badly misapplied Marx. I just feel like religion is usually unfairly singled out by the Dawkins, et al when there's been just as many ideas from the secular world, many sold as "scientific" and promoted by "scientists" that influenced terrible behavior. The latest one is probably the race/IQ/violence controversy, which was built on specious science, but is used by the "converted" as an excuse for ethno-national policies.
As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.
Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.
That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.
No, actually, I don't think you get it at all. As I mentioned earlier, there's utilitarian, that is, good things that can come from faith. They wouldn't work for me, but, I absolutely agree that helps certain people (which I don't consider any less than me). There's no way to separate religion from psychology, IMO. As much as it ruined a lot of people's lives, it also helped a lot of people.
The biggest problem I see, however, is that having an argument over one guy hopes and dreams over another guy's hope and dreams is largely, well, irrational. There's no basis in provable fact where you can reach a conclusion one was wrong and the other was right. That's just a logical extension of the fact that neither is really talking about anything that we can ascertain conclusively it's right or wrong. It basically becomes Opinion A vs Opinion B. Those kind of discussions we see in this place every day, and are largely driven by personal fanaticism towards our own ideas.
Now, I don't hope or wish Jesus Christ shows up tomorrow on earth, but should it happen, then now we have something empirical to talk about, and we can start flagging: this guy was wrong, this guy was right.
What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve.
Also, following the city's decline, a load of homeless poured in. Most are white.
apalisoc_9
Christopher Hitchens sounds like the shooter, too
There's some dogma in that, if you think about it. People that took some idea, not quite sure if it was right, but loved it so much that became fanatics about it. Once you cross that bridge, you're done, IMO.
There's a human aversion at a perfectly valid scientific position which is: we don't know yet. We want to be right all the time, and we can accept when we're wrong, but nobody wants to be in the middle. People love to pick sides and defend them to the end, death sometimes.
And we live at a time where this is a well known fact, and some people love to drive a large wedge there. It's actually kind of ironic when I read about drinking the kool aid, or the red/blue pill... that's really fanaticism at work.
ElNono Spurtacular
Hitch says the moral thing is to kill Jihadists. No faith involved. Just the flat out moral thing to do. What you guys think?
Kill is certainly his opinion, but capture, lock in jail and throw away the key, for sure. Extremism is the maximum expression of fanaticism, and I don't know one instance where it doesn't end badly.
This guy in New Zealand was a radicalized extremist. It's really not exclusive to islam.
Plus, he's maintaining coherency, tbh... you can't make a case about organized religion in general if you start picking and choosing.
I like Sam Harris better, btw
As I said prior, uncertainty is uncomfortable. And we like simple answers to difficult questions, like the Race/IQ debate. "Oh no, black intellectual achievement compared to whites couldn't possibly be a result of a variety of socioeconomic factors that will take effort (and compassion) to solve. They're just genetically dumber!"
What's the redeeming value of keeping them alive?
Well, I think I candidly noted that I have no intention of making points over another person based on faith; so, we're on the same page there. Though, I think it's a bit stupid to equate faith with empiricism. That's not how it works by definition. Your argument against it based on that is naive or laughable really.
Chicken or the egg stuff, honestly.What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve.
Also, following the city's decline, a load of homeless poured in. Most are white.
Big surprise. Black people committing the most crime.What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve.
Also, following the city's decline, a load of homeless poured in. Most are white.
At least at the end of the day we both understand that poverty and lack of education are the biggest factors in crime. We at least have that common understanding.
The remote chance they caught the wrong guy, for example.
More on this point. I think as conventional religion dissolves over the next century, it'll be replaced by a form of religion where "faith" in technology plays the central role. As a techie/nerd, you know I'm talking about the singularity, with the movement's biggest prophet Ray Kurzweil writing such books led as "The Age of Spiritual Machines." And people, especially in Silicon Valley, take him and his ideas seriously, even if they're total bull . Even A.I. researchers who should know better play up the hype because VCs don't really care about Kalman filters and regression models, they wanna know when am I going to be able to upload my brain into a robot body and live forever!
As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.
Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.
That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.
The pop-sci and pop-tech rags are complicit because the tone of their coverage on these nonsense technologies is very much serious, and with our ever increasing blind faith in technology and "scientists" (I label them in quotes, because while I do think the take their in lab work seriously, they hype up to keep the grant money coming in, and people just take anyone with PhD beside their name at face value), people believe that re ed animatronic chatbots (Sophia) are "alive," and are the first step toward "Skynet" or transcendence or whatever.
Now will this nerdy idea be dogmatized to commit atrocities in the name of it? If history is any indication, any idea that promises immortality, more power, or positions you as superior to the "other," is typically dogmatized. Hopefully we collectively grow up and don't think our tech toys that are sure to wow us over the next century are anything more than toys and tools.
Good read: https://blog.piekniewski.info/2019/0...ffair-with-ai/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote