Scientific Proof Of God

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25848
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:22 pm

Generally I'd just call that a disagreement, but the context is the nature of the statement - is it an object claim etc?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 63140
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by JimC » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:29 pm

I actually thought about it in the context of some fantasy novels. A wizard casts a truth spell on someone, compelling them to tell the truth. Some plot lines depend on this not working as well as the wizard would like, when the subject of the spell has a false belief, he can utter it, and the spell (which, of course, is a 100% accurate magical lie detector) accepts it as legit...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25848
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:09 am

Then all the wizard is finding is what the subject of their glamour believes to be true: and we already know that belief is irrelevant when it comes to categorical statements or declarations etc - not that authors necessarily need to worry about that kind of thing.

I guess, with reference to your first question, that what we're touching on is something akin to the moral culpability of someone who unwittingly maintains that some falsehood actually represents a truth: are they lying; are they a liar in those circumstances? I don't think so. They are misinformed, ignorant of the facts, mistaken etc, but while laying a moral charge on them may be tempting I think one should at least make a goodwill effort to give them the info or the tools they might need to correct their misapprehensions. Of course, if they doggedly refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong and/or bat away reasonable objections or logical arguments, then in the end I'd probably just label them as closed-minded, or ideologically harnessed to a bad idea. But the more they bang about it the more inclined I am to think of them as not very serious, silly, ridiculous - and the ridiculous invites ridicule doesn't it(?) It's hard not to be judgey sometimes eh?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 17905
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by laklak » Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:16 am

No, it's psychosis.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25848
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:48 am

In what way would a person be psychotic for believing a falsehood, as opposed to, say, just being mistaken? On what basis are we categorising them here? A medical one? People aren't necessarily mentally ill when they're ignorant, misinformed, or have been manipulated or abused into certain beliefs and practices. But in such cases to what extent can we legitimately class them as morally culpable for their belief in falsehoods? If they're mentally ill are they really responsible; should we not try and treat them, help them get better if we can anyway? If they're brainwashed are we right to upbraid or condemn them, call them liars?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 63140
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by JimC » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:21 am

Brian, I sometimes think that you are too rational to belong to Rationalia... :tea:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 51457
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:32 am

Conservatives are obviously mentally ill. :tea:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9832
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by rainbow » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:43 am

JimC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:12 pm
If you make a statement that to an impartial observer is clearly wrong, but that you whole-heartedly believe is correct, is that lying?
supersmellyarse doesn't actually believe the crap it spews out, therefore it's a blatant lie.
aingira usaina duzu

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21179
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Hermit » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:16 am

rainbow wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:43 am
JimC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:12 pm
If you make a statement that to an impartial observer is clearly wrong, but that you whole-heartedly believe is correct, is that lying?
supersmellyarse doesn't actually believe the crap it spews out, therefore it's a blatant lie.
Dennis Markuze, like Glaxative, is incapable of distinguishing between what is true and what is not. This is why both are utterly convinced of the truth of every figment of their fevered imagination, no matter how nonsensical they are to everyone else.
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9832
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by rainbow » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:08 am

Hermit wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:16 am
rainbow wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:43 am
JimC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:12 pm
If you make a statement that to an impartial observer is clearly wrong, but that you whole-heartedly believe is correct, is that lying?
supersmellyarse doesn't actually believe the crap it spews out, therefore it's a blatant lie.
Dennis Markuze, like Glaxative, is incapable of distinguishing between what is true and what is not. This is why both are utterly convinced of the truth of every figment of their fevered imagination, no matter how nonsensical they are to everyone else.
I might give 'them' the benefit of the doubt if they were to engage in argument, but they duck every pertinent question.
:prof: They wouldn't do the swerve, if they had the verve. :prof:

:ask: Are they not actually the same person? :ask:
aingira usaina duzu

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21179
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Hermit » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:57 am

rainbow wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:08 am
I might give 'them' the benefit of the doubt if they were to engage in argument, but they duck every pertinent question.
:prof: They wouldn't do the swerve, if they had the verve. :prof:

:ask: Are they not actually the same person? :ask:
Neither are interested in arguing their case because they are totally convinced that their madcap ideas are beyond the need to be argued for. And no, they are not the same person. Markuze is Canadian and Glaxative is Australian.
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25848
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:03 pm

Glaxo is easier to engage with because he makes longer posts and responds to comments, albeit somewhat erratically, but I think Hermie is right: both parties are, well, shall we say, troubled individuals who have certain difficulties which they seem unable to overcome.

A good friend of mine has recently come through a bout of mental illness after suffering a personal trauma, and while they seemed to have 'pulled through' as it were I found it very difficult to tread a line between supporting them and challenging their thinking, especially without reinforcing their delusions or, to be honest, letting my frustration get the better of me. At times I don't think I was wholly successful on either count.

Luckily my friend managed to access the kind of ongoing support from professionals they needed, but my concern is that here, on the internet, unregulated interactions between us and those who are having trouble integrating their thinking and experience into common reality can be quite damaging to them - because not only does the internet offer us a relatively consequence-free environment but it often appears easier, or perhaps just quicker, to instinctively respond with upbraids, snarks, and public condemnation and a lot harder to take stock and recognise and/or compensate for people's apparent personal difficulties. Some of us on this forum know what's like from both ends.

I don't think we can help those troubled individuals directly by what we post, but at least we can make efforts not to make them any worse eh?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 9832
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by rainbow » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:26 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:03 pm

I don't think we can help those troubled individuals directly by what we post, but at least we can make efforts not to make them any worse eh?
:oops: I'll try to be more understanding, but a gobshite is a gobshite.
aingira usaina duzu

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 17905
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by laklak » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:49 pm

Dennis has had every opportunity to get his mental ass fixed. He's been arrested, evaulated, treated, and he's still doing the same old shit.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 21179
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Scientific Proof Of God

Post by Hermit » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:20 am

laklak wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:49 pm
Dennis has had every opportunity to get his mental ass fixed. He's been arrested, evaulated, treated, and he's still doing the same old shit.
That's because the "ZAP, you're cured" therapy is still under construction. In the 1950s and 60s ECT was regarded as the wonder-cure for many mental disorders, but the jubilation turned out to be premature.

Image

A classmate of one of my sisters is psychotic. She has undergone many therapies and treatments, including electroconvulsive therapy, a range of drugs, etc. After 50 years in the hands of shrinks she's still fucking mad.
Hermit wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm
People who quote themselves are either neurotic arseholes or inveterate trolls or both.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests