what the fuck

[nahuel]

sorry for my bad english, the discussion is very interesting

Decartes didn't get any further than "I think therefore I am"

You can not underestimate the contribution of Descartes. The famous quote "I think therefore I am" is just the start of the cartesian philosophical method which it was the cornerstone of rationalism. Rationalism and empiricism are the parents of the scientific method; still used now.
Aniway Descartes discards uses the religion ( the idea of god) to justify not live in a " simulation ".

Some have calculated that the odds we are not in a simulation at 0.03%

I've seen some notes about this declarations in tabloid sites like RT . Quite philosophical and scientific controversy have been these calculations. So far they have only been criticized by serious scientists . But I'm not an advanced theoretical physicist , so i prefer the realism philosophy that the string theory.
Strongly I recommend a book by an Argentine philosopher , a skeptic scientistic : Mario Bunge (Not well known outside the academy) called "Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism".

Personally I do not think religion is bad. On the contrary, in many cases it has helped people out of addiction problems and existential questions. religious people is less depressive. It is also known that religion gives social cohesion. Science can not answer it all, or ever will. Although our material uncertainties are resolved, questions will always exist, and that it will enter religion or belief.

Humans are not totally rational. They will always be irrational thoughts.
The problem is the same for science and for religion. Used by powerful and malicious politicians the results will be very negative.

[Adam]

I think it's easy to dismiss those who came before as ignorant or not having a very good grasp on what we think today, but Cartesian philosophy has a lot to say about how we think of mind and body nowadays and our dualist approach to health (the way we still consider mental and physical conditions to be completely different, for example, has its roots in Cartesian dualism). I would consider that just because Descartes didn't believe he could prove certain theories, doesn't make him a failure. If anything, it makes him a great philosopher (even if some of his methods or ideas seem basic to us today) because he was willing to question everything, which is an excellent place to start, if you are looking to find the truth. I'm not sure if you're making a connection between him and Goedel, but if you are, it's not clear. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Some have calculated that the odds we are not in a simulation at 0.03%

Who says that? And whether or not we are in a simulation, or whether or not there's a god, or whether or not there are other intelligent life forms in our universe, or whether or not it's a universe and not a multiverse... none of this has any bearing on religion, because it is all theory. The religion is separate from the existence of a god or gods, in that it is our way of worshipping or explaining or believing in a god. So the simulation thing might be interesting but it's not relevant to the continuation of religion (or its discontinuation).

You are vehemently anti-science and have embraced the religion called nihilism.

I'm not a nihilist, and nihilism isn't really a religion. It's a school of philosophical thought, and is woefully misrepresented in mainstream society as being negative and depressing. Nihilists might be accused of being reductionist, but their perspective still offers something to those of us who aren't: namely, how do we justify our rejection of such reductionism? How can we offer an argument against their claim that all our political, ethical, or religious beliefs are artificial constructs? And if we can't, then what does that say about the strengths of our beliefs? I'm also not opposed to the idea that these are artificial. If anything, I believe that they all are. But I think we do need a basis for moral behaviour, for example, whether or not there is any kind of 'natural' or inherent morality, because otherwise there'd be chaos.

I can trust the religious guy to know he is religious, the non-religious guy almost always is religious, but doesn't know it!

So religious people are the only ones who are self aware? Come on. I can trust a mechanic to know that he's a mechanic, I can trust a teacher to know she's a teacher, I can trust zookeeper to know he's a zookeeper. You don't have to be religious to know what you believe. Just assuming that non-religious people are too dumb to have worked the world out smacks of arrogance and is the whole reason we're in this stupid bloody mess. So to cut the bullshit, why don't we get rid of religions and just have groups of like minded people, get together in a place, with a shared interest and have a couple of club rules, you know, stating the obvious like : Don't steal, rape or murder anyone and buy your parents a present on their birthday.

That way we might have fewer deluded men running around chopping people's heads off because their made up supernatural being is the only made up supernatural being you're allowed to pretend exists...

[Adam]

The problem is the same for science and for religion. Used by powerful and malicious politicians the results will be very negative.

This is really beautifully said. Great point, Nahuel.

[Baker]

Adam, too much to respond to ... complex topic, so expected.

I'm not a nihilist

I didn't say you were and I don't ultimately think you are or will be.

Where there is thought, there is fluidity. And you are certainly very intelligent.

and nihilism isn't really a religion.

It certainly is. If it requires belief in unprovable statements, it is a religion.

Stating, for example, there is not a God (or gods) and all that exists the mundane we can prove is nihilism, because it ignores the opposite side --- what can not be known and what remains to be discovered.

There is no such thing as atheism, the very word is contradiction. It means "I don't believe in a God or gods". As such, it defines itself by being the opposite of what it claims does not exist.

Atheism is a social cause, it is reaction to a religion, not a bonafide belief. It is a "counter" form of nihilism, but NOT negative. There are no positive or negative thoughts or ideas, only ideas.

I have more, but I'm watching the College Football championship game.

/I will say I'm impressed about how many Germans and Brazilians and such can converse very well in English. As an American (I'm 3/4 German, btw), I can slightly understand Spanish and that about it! Americans suck!

[Note: simulation ideas aren't a theory. Godel proved it would be impossible to verify. Theories must be provable or disprovable. If we are in a simulation, it can never be proved or disproved is outside the bounds of what the scientific method can deal with.]

[Adam]

"I am not a nihilist" was meant to be read as a statement, not accusatory in its intent.
As with a lot of internet comments, it can be read different ways. A weakness of written language.

I don't think nihilism is a religion, just because you believe in something that is unprovable (at the moment,anyway) doesn't alone make it a religion.

I might believe in aliens, that fusion power is about to be discovered, that mining companies are in it just for money and don't care about the wellbeing of the local people or land (oh wait, scratch that last one).

In fact there are tons of theories that can't be proven true at this current time but which seem plausible. That doesn't make them religions, or people that believe in them, religious.

I think you're oversimplifying what components make up a religion and in doing so, casting too wide a net.

Let's make one up...
The Gospel Of Quake. Carmack is the Creator, Romero is the first apostle.
We all look to the Creator for guidance, anything he writes down needs to analysed, kept and maybe chanted occasionally (at QuakeCon).
Next we live our lives in accordance to some vague rules, and each day we play/pray to the Quake engine.
Awesome! Now you could say that does a disservice to what people refer to as the "real" religions but hang on! I say, give it a hundred years, bury a few Quake manuals in the desert, only to be unearthed by someone, and we could get to some sacrificial gibbing. None of the founders are still alive so we can appoint some high profile players (or priests) to tell us who to kill and yay! Carmack will shine his divine light down onto my desktop and take the blue screen away...

=/

I just don't think religions are required anymore. All the good parts (love thy neighbour, keep a beginner's mind etc) can be applied to other clubs/groups, and all the bad parts could be thrown away.

Granted, a lot of this would have been helped, even solved, if these religious groups just modernised and kept up with the times.

But, OH NO! Our Supreme being can never be wrong! He dictated a book to us hundreds of years ago but hasn't seen fit to pick up the phone since.
Not even a text msg.

Honestly, it's so backward, its narrative so full of holes but forget them! just keep the faith...

/rant

[R00k]

You mean, why do Americans name their kids a bunch of transliteral Jew names?

Even my name is straight up transliterated hebrew

Mi(who?) cha(is like) el(God)

my brother's name was Michael.

[Baker]

Honestly, it's so backward, its narrative so full of holes but forget them! just keep the faith...

/rant

Well, if you lose your composure during an argument of philosophy, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.

But it might mean you aren't really the right guy to be champion of your philosophy.

I wouldn't take it personally. You probably are the in the 99th percentile of the people of your particular religion. I do mean that in being the best 99th percent representative of being totally wrong is still 100% wrong every single day of the week.

That's just how science works, it doesn't favors points of view .. only ones that can be backed or not backed by evidence.

[Baker]

Look, let me just say that I doubt I am going to convince you otherwise so we will have to agree to disagree on some of your statements.
Hopefully, you are fine with that.

Now, look ....

You set me up with false expectations that you weren't going to crap out when the philosophy got too logical.

I've had a lot to drink. Believe me, it's been a lot -- it's more than 11 now.

And I am rather profoundly disappointed at this point that given the premise that you could defeat my point of view with science, instead decided to crap out and run away in defeat playing the emotion card.

I did not defeat you. Science defeated you. I don't bring anything to the table except the best mankind, for all its flaws, has to offer.

And you failed the test.

I shall leave you and science alone, and it is my sincere hope that you grow from this experience. I did not bring you this experience, I merely communicated the current cutting edge of science the way the philosophers you claim to admire would define it.

May you experience the personal growth and attain the wisdom of the philosophers you claim to admire.

Lord knows, today you have failed that test in plain sight.

Only you know what tomorrow might for yourself.

[Adam]

I've had a lot to drink. Believe me, it's been a lot -- it's more than 11 now.

Okey dokey then. Maybe that explains why you seem to be so aggressive. I guess we'll talk again when you're sober; at the moment you just seem to be on the offensive, and many of your sentences don't make sense.

Failed? Nope, not biting there.

I would like to say though, only in your head was I here to defend science against religion. If you want to believe that you 'won', then, OK. You win! Not sure what you're winning, though. I still think that religion is outdated and pointless.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

I brought enough meme's for everyone , in due time.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY[/ame]

[nahuel]

anyone who knows the basics of epistemology knows that the "truths" of science are only temporary , and these "thruts" aRE linked to their historic time . That is, there are no absolute truths , only perfectible knowledge.
The work of science is to make perfectible knowledge or create new knowledge. The truth as a concept is an idea, and as such is unattainable.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

anyone who knows the basics of epistemology knows that the "truths" of science are only temporary , and these "thruts" aRE linked to their historic time . That is, there are no absolute truths , only perfectible knowledge.
The work of science is to make perfectible knowledge or create new knowledge. The truth as a concept is an idea, and as such is unattainable.

Good thing we got science huh??

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp6_sDiup6U[/ame]

I'm watching that right now,it's pretty good so far.

[nahuel]

thanks for the video.

I believe science is the most advanced and best tool to solve problems and request questions. Epistemology is a tool to understand how the science works

[Mindf!3ldzX]

thanks for the video.

I believe science is the most advanced and best tool to solve problems and request questions. Epistemology is a tool to understand how the science works

I find science both fascinating and interesting on the most extreme levels.

What do you think about Roger Shawyers EM Drive possibly being an example of "truths" in science, going against law of conservation of momentum?

I'm just along for the ride,obviously. I hope we end up with a NCC-1701D galaxy class starship That much I am certain of, optimism at its finest, boldly going where no (wo)man has gone before.

[Baker]

I guess we'll talk again when you're sober; at the moment you just seem to be on the offensive, and many of your sentences don't make sense.]

Sports and beer, a good mix but rare. I like science and philosophy and can get too "enthusiastic" about it under those conditions.

Yeah, I did go on the offensive a little. I was actually trying to not to.

But I could have done a better job.