Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 3
 [ 47 posts ] 
Serious Metaphysical Discussion
Author Message
Raistlin MajerePosts: 228Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:58 pm

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

You blur reality with stupidity. Think about it.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:39 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Woa woa woa...
I made this thread with the intent that us rejectors of conventional reality could converse in an open format with each other that would be rather difficult ithin PM of one another.

We don't need old copypasta "lol evidence plz" arguments - since we already accept that our arguments we present have no scientific basis beyond philisophical conjecture and personal experiences. It would be like telling me that I breathe air molecules, I really don't need it to be brought up anymore, since I grasp the concept of what you're saying. We fucking get it.
I placed it in "Psuedoscience" for exactly that reason - it is a Pseudoscience thread. I didn't place it on the "General Chat" for that reason, and so tat it would be away from the trollish bullshit of repeating the same old shit.
But I wanted it to be a literal Pseudoscience thread with a serious intention towards those that seriously Philisophically grasp the ideas of different Metaphysical concepts. The thread is about the serious discussion of these concepts, and to derail it for the sake of lulz and causing flaming, by the board's ToS, considered trolling (if I remember right - it's what is stated under the "Report" button for "Trolling").

If you don't like the thread, you don't have it read it - the Topic is "Serious Metaphysical Discussion." It is not about providing Evidence. Feel free to make a thread about Metaphysics being bullshit, or go to any of the other fine threads posted around the Forum. There's plenty, I assure you, that will be more than happy to take your grandstanding (but if you were with "everyone else" there wouldn't be a conflict, then there wouldn't be a debate - and what good is an intellectual discussion?! You're here for FLAMES AND DEBATEZ!!!)

-----------------------------------------------

The Hubris can stay where it's needed since it's discarded state means that it was absolutely correct.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:33 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2681Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Niocan wrote:I find it quite amusing that Reason be defined as adhering to scientific literalism and over-objective materialism, instead of what it should be: The structured offspring of Thought.
So bite your tongues, swine of Babylonian confusion, as I explain the connection between the physical and metaphysical.

All creation stories, mythologies, pantheons, and mythic tales are symbols of internal operations and processes of the Pyche, or Spirit. All have within them similarities that overlap to give a blueprint of what is deemed 'Salvation', or rather, the separation of Spirit from Matter. The philosophical death is the realization of our own ignorance and the philosophical resurrection births the New Man, or awakened Mind.

You've been told a thousand times of how to become like Gautama Buddah, Yasuha, Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Zoroaster, etc. Yet you're not because your veil hasn't been lifted by yourSelf. Thus, a state of ignorance exists for all of us, to varying degrees.

It's not like they had the same terms we use today, and to judge the past cultures based upon our current education system is absurd to the highest degree. So with this in mind, Astrology becomes the inner movements of added emphasis placed on the Mind through time; Alchemy is the Divine chemistry of transmutation of which the Spirit undergoes through it's ascension; The pantheon of deities become anthropomorphized characteristics of the Mind, and their interactions and rituals are reflections of what path to take, and what to watch out for.

Is this starting to make sense? Or will you continue to walk with a veil before your eyes...



I can't really tell if you're being wholly or partially facetious here, Niocan, but I'm gonna ask you to stop referring to the rest of us as confused swine, and claiming we are walking with veils before your eyes.

You're basically dressing up your trolling in a nice dress, but we won't have it anymore. It is blatant trolling, really, and at best it opens up for everyone else to call you an irrational new-age hippie conspirarcy theorist, and if they do, the mods could hardly warn them for something like that, given what you've just said to those people.

Consider this a stern warning.

As long as you cannot provide people on these boards with solid evidence, preferably peer-reviewed, then you are not, as you must already know full-well by now, going to convince anyone of anything.
The fact that this doesn't seem to have dawned on you yet is frankly baffling.



Raistlin
No need to get so personal. Keeping it humorous is fine, getting insulting is not.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:45 am
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Ahh, what fun. Lets get started then.

Niocan wrote:I find it quite amusing that Reason be defined as adhering to scientific literalism and over-objective materialism

I find it amusing that you presume to lecture me on the nature of reason without reading or understanding a damn word I said.

Lets go over it again, shall we?

Two quotes, both from my second post
Squawk wrote:What you will find me asking for, repeatedly, is evidence, or at the very least some sound basis for a particular conjecture.

Squawk wrote:If you wish to erect postulates for which there is precisely zero empirical evidence or sound inductive reason


Appropriate portions highlighted for your perusal. So, you find it amusing how I define reason, and then demonstrate that you have failed to grasp how I have defined reason. I'll leave it to the interested reader to draw conclusions.

Niocan wrote:instead of what it should be: The structured offspring of Thought.

You'll note that I covered this too in my opening. Again, I'll quote the appropriate section

Squawk wrote:"lets discuss make believe. mine vs yours"

The question is, how much do I need to expand upon this until you get it? Philosophy comes in two forms. Either it applies to reality, or it does not. The latter I refer to as an intellectual masturbation, or alternatively as a masturbation fantasy. How to separate the two? Philosophy that applies to reality must adhere to a couple of minimalist axioms, that reality exists, that reality can be perceived, and pertinent to this discussion, that reason can be applied to reality.

These are the things that I referred to earlier as a "sound basis" from which to make inference. The latter form doesn't apply to reality, or rather doesn't necessarily apply to reality. It might be interesting to discuss, indeed can be fun for stretching the intellectual muscles, but it cannot be anything else other than an intellectual exercise because it is not grounded in that which is. Ergo, it is a simple thought experiment with no possible conclusion, where the goal is the process, not the conclusion. And so I refer to it as a masturbation fantasy.

This is what you are endeavouring to promote here. Had this discussion been in the philosopny section I'd have let it slide. I might even have been inclined to contribute positively, I do enjoy bashing around the odd idea. But it isn't in that section, and so I won't. Instead, I'll come back to your quote. You defined reason as "the structured offspring of thought", but have not grounded it and are therefore embarking on a masturbation fantasy, a philosophical discussion that can be boiled down to make believe.


Niocan wrote:So bite your tongues, swine of Babylonian confusion

I presume you're referring to bullshit vs non bullshit here. It would seem I can detect the former.

Niocan wrote:All creation stories, mythologies, pantheons, and mythic tales are symbols of internal operations and processes of the Pyche, or Spirit.


Baseless assertion, the existence of a spirit is not demonstrated, so we are once again dealing with make believe. You can apply sound reasoning to your hearts content based on a faulty premise, but it's still a faulty premise and will be labelled bullshit by myself. Next!

Niocan wrote:All have within them similarities that overlap to give a blueprint of what is deemed 'Salvation', or rather, the separation of Spirit from Matter.

And all are still rooted in make believe, so I ignore them all equally and again point out that this discussion has no place in this forum. At a stretch, and after the mention of a spirit I really do now mean a stretch, in the philosophy forum. However, you haven't stated if, possibly or maybe regarding the existence postulate of a spirit that can be separate from the physical, you have stated it as a fact, as existing, and so I shall call bullshit and point out that it probably doesn't now even have a place in the philosophy forum.

Niocan wrote:The philosophical death is the realization of our own ignorance and the philosophical resurrection births the New Man, or awakened Mind.

You've changed tack mid post. How interesting. This particular sentence would have been extremely interesting in any philosophical discussion on consciousness and existence, but in present context it's an extension of make believe.

You presume to lecture me on philosophical discussion? You have no idea.


Niocan wrote:You've been told a thousand times of how to become like Gautama Buddah, Yasuha, Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Zoroaster, etc. Yet you're not because your veil hasn't been lifted by yourSelf. Thus, a state of ignorance exists for all of us, to varying degrees.


You're getting your philosophies mixed up. You're confusing a genuinely interesting philosophical discussion on self-awareness, self identify, conciousness and the like for bullshit concerning the supernatural. I already noted that an interesting philosophical discussion could have taken place. You make that impossible as you can't separate metaphysics from the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and you push the existence of the supernatural as an established fact.


Niocan wrote:It's not like they had the same terms we use today, and to judge the past cultures based upon our current education system is absurd to the highest degree. So with this in mind, Astrology becomes the inner movements of added emphasis placed on the Mind through time; Alchemy is the Divine chemistry of transmutation of which the Spirit undergoes through it's ascension; The pantheon of deities become anthropomorphized characteristics of the Mind, and their interactions and rituals are reflections of what path to take, and what to watch out for.

I've highlighted the appropriate bullshit to show why I have a problem. Your other points in this paragraph were potentially reasonable. Again, an interesting discussion could have taken place on such subjects, though not in this forum. That would have been in philosophy again. However you can't restrict yourself to that because, much as you protest, you don't actually understand what you are talking about. It could even be argued that this particular line is reasonable, transmutation and ascension could refer to increased awareness, so I will reserve absolute judgement until clarification is forthcoming. However, based on the rest of your post I'm inclined to think not. I'm inclined to think you are once again referring to some supernatural entity when you refer to the spirit, and so I point out it's make believe.


Niocan wrote:Is this starting to make sense? Or will you continue to walk with a veil before your eyes...


You mean this bullshit filter? Yeah, had it installed a while back, seems to work pretty well.
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:57 am
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Woa woa woa...
I made this thread with the intent that us rejectors of conventional reality could converse in an open format with each other that would be rather difficult ithin PM of one another.

We don't need old copypasta "lol evidence plz" arguments - since we already accept that our arguments we present have no scientific basis beyond philisophical conjecture and personal experiences. It would be like telling me that I breathe air molecules, I really don't need it to be brought up anymore, since I grasp the concept of what you're saying. We fucking get it.
I placed it in "Psuedoscience" for exactly that reason - it is a Pseudoscience thread. I didn't place it on the "General Chat" for that reason, and so tat it would be away from the trollish bullshit of repeating the same old shit.
But I wanted it to be a literal Pseudoscience thread with a serious intention towards those that seriously Philisophically grasp the ideas of different Metaphysical concepts. The thread is about the serious discussion of these concepts, and to derail it for the sake of lulz and causing flaming, by the board's ToS, considered trolling (if I remember right - it's what is stated under the "Report" button for "Trolling").

If you don't like the thread, you don't have it read it - the Topic is "Serious Metaphysical Discussion." It is not about providing Evidence. Feel free to make a thread about Metaphysics being bullshit, or go to any of the other fine threads posted around the Forum. There's plenty, I assure you, that will be more than happy to take your grandstanding (but if you were with "everyone else" there wouldn't be a conflict, then there wouldn't be a debate - and what good is an intellectual discussion?! You're here for FLAMES AND DEBATEZ!!!)

-----------------------------------------------

The Hubris can stay where it's needed since it's discarded state means that it was absolutely correct.



I can see why you wish for such a discussion Hytegia, but I dispute that this forum (league of reason) is the place for it. Too many people with opinions (myself, for example).
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Last edited by Squawk on Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:11 am
creamcheeseUser avatarPosts: 145Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:47 amLocation: CA, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Squawk wrote:<snip out lots of epic smack-down>


+1

Nothing I can really add to this, other than I agree completely.

I do wonder if Niocan is simply on mind-altering substances when he posts, and that's why nothing he says sounds sane to me. :facepalm:
Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:02 am
5810SingerPosts: 982Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:51 pm

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote: I made this thread with the intent that us rejectors of conventional reality could converse in an open format

Speaking as a pagan again, there are no such things as supernatural or paranormal, there is only natural and normal.
Some phenomena might be currently inexplicable, or only occurs very infrequently, or is very hard to observe, but it is all natural and normal.

As far as "rejecting conventional reality" goes,.....whaddya mean "reject"? Am I to assume that you eschew all mundane phenomena? How do you achieve that?

Even Harry Potter eat's toast, and uses the toilet,....he certainly doesn't "reject conventional reality" when it comes to his breakfast, or his bowel-movements.......





In closing,...forgive me, you were right the first time,...I have no place in this discussion.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:57 am
Raistlin MajerePosts: 228Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:58 pm

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Gnug215 wrote:Raistlin
No need to get so personal. Keeping it humorous is fine, getting insulting is not.


It's a bit of a mix, really. But when someone like this can actually affect the well being and health of others through their spreading bullshit, then I take it personally. Nothing else seems to get through to him, and it's not exactly as if he's being civil. Referring to us as swine, calling my education the equivalent to the training of a dog. He can go fuck himself, as far as I'm concerned. We've tried to be nice and reasonable for months now and we see where that's gotten us.
Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:56 pm
borrofburiModeratorPosts: 3527Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Gnug215 wrote:Consider this a stern warning.

It should be noted, for clarification purposes, that unlike the rest of us lowly chat ops, gnug is also a forum moderator; so when gnug says "stern warning" it actually means something (as opposed to, say, me, where everything I say is merely my own opinion).
Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:23 pm
NiocanBannedUser avatarPosts: 769Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:57 amLocation: Winnipeg, Manitoba Gender: Male

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Gnug215 wrote:I can't really tell if you're being wholly or partially facetious here, Niocan, but I'm gonna ask you to stop referring to the rest of us as confused swine, and claiming we are walking with veils before your eyes.
I'm quite serious with what I said there, and if anything I've said here sank into your mind then you'd know that I'm referring to your current psychological state with those words; Consuming, confused, and blind.

Gnug215 wrote:You're basically dressing up your trolling in a nice dress, but we won't have it anymore. It is blatant trolling, really, and at best it opens up for everyone else to call you an irrational new-age hippie conspirarcy theorist, and if they do, the mods could hardly warn them for something like that, given what you've just said to those people.
It's not trolling, and I'm starting to think that thought is manifested more times then not to aid in peoples blanket rejection of what I have to say. Stop throwing labels at the unknown [Me] to justify your own viewpoint of it.

Gnug215 wrote:Consider this a stern warning.
For what, responding to a thread addressed to my own perspective on the subjects included in said thread? I'm sorry, but get over yourself. You guys came in here, I flexed my poetic muscle after telling you how to 'decode' it, and now you're playing the hurt hero.

Gnug215 wrote:As long as you cannot provide people on these boards with solid evidence, preferably peer-reviewed, then you are not, as you must already know full-well by now, going to convince anyone of anything.
The fact that this doesn't seem to have dawned on you yet is frankly baffling.
Oh I know of this fact, and it saddens me to see such 'reasonable' people fall victim to the lack of personal thoughts or ability to take someones OPINION at face value.

Squawk: If I had left out the mention of Spirit, and restructured my use around the Psyche instead (Surprise, they're the same thing), you'd accept my argument because no trigger words were present; Have you questioned yourself as to why that is? Why do you stop all critical thought about someones opinion and switch to a defensive stance when simple words/labels are used? Why are you expecting me to conform to 'accepted standards' when I'm posting in a thread that's supposed to be a discussion between a few people and their opinions about a set topic? The sad thing here, is that it seems you would have something interesting to add about my other thoughts but fail to discuss them because I used one word over the other..

It seems I either need to step up my cryptic symbolism to avoid persecution (The reason why symbolism was used to begin with) or I can simply ignore pavlovas dogs..
Know, O man, that Light is thine heritage. Know that darkness is only a veil. Sealed in thine heart is brightness eternal, waiting the moment of freedom to conquer, waiting to rend the veil of the night. --Thoth
Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:42 pm
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Niocan wrote:
Squawk: If I had left out the mention of Spirit, and restructured my use around the Psyche instead (Surprise, they're the same thing), you'd accept my argument because no trigger words were present; Have you questioned yourself as to why that is?


I take all words in context. I can provide evidence of my doing this all over this forum. In your case you have referenced the supernatural on more than one occasion leading me to the conclusion I did. So yes, I have questioned why I did it. I had sound reason for doing so and was justified.

Niocan wrote: Why do you stop all critical thought about someones opinion and switch to a defensive stance when simple words/labels are used?

I don't, I infer context to figure out what the person meant. Could you be guilty of that which you accuse me of?


Niocan wrote:Why are you expecting me to conform to 'accepted standards' when I'm posting in a thread that's supposed to be a discussion between a few people and their opinions about a set topic?

You might want to define "accepted standards" properly so that I can form an appropriate response. It would seem you are under the impression that I reserve special treatment for you. I don't, I highlight all bullshit from any source.

Niocan wrote: The sad thing here, is that it seems you would have something interesting to add about my other thoughts but fail to discuss them because I used one word over the other

The word in question is irrelevant, it was the context and indeed content implied by the word.

Niocan wrote:It seems I either need to step up my cryptic symbolism to avoid persecution (The reason why symbolism was used to begin with) or I can simply ignore pavlovas dogs..


Since I have not done the things that you imply that I have I take the reference to pavlovas dogs as an insult, and have reported this post accordingly.

With respect to crypticism, it is clear that you have thus far failed to realise what my objection is: the assertion as fact of things which are mythical. You can't dress it up. You can provide clear definitions, and you can proclaim that you are using speculation. You have not done so and this post of yours would seem to suggest you have no intent of being anything other than deceptive and/or trollish.
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:48 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Actually, when I made this thread - in the Skepticism Forum - in the Subset "Pseudoscience" - I thought it through as appropriate considering that the mere conventional section heading "Pseudoscience" implies that it's not actual Scientific discussion.
If it was under "Science" then you'd all have something to whine and bitch about. Considering it isn't, then I say that this is the exact appropriate place for this topic - and that people should stay on that topic, or avoid it entirely. It's not like I've placed it in the middle of "Science and Mathematics" and said "now you gaiz gotta accept it lulul"

----------

On a side note, not all Pagans practice or believe Magick - this is simply commonplace practice.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:23 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2681Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Niocan wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:I can't really tell if you're being wholly or partially facetious here, Niocan, but I'm gonna ask you to stop referring to the rest of us as confused swine, and claiming we are walking with veils before your eyes.
I'm quite serious with what I said there, and if anything I've said here sank into your mind then you'd know that I'm referring to your current psychological state with those words; Consuming, confused, and blind.


This is really ironic coming from someone whose psychological state is the one demonstrably settled. I'm not the one who has decided with myself that crop circles are made by aliens, that science is a grand conspiracy, that spirits are real. I've stood opposed and skeptical to those propositions in the light of lacking (none) evidence, but I'm more than willing to change my mind if you had given any evidence or sound arguments. The funny, funny thing is that you NEVER did ANYthing of the sort throughout all your time here.

Niocan wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:You're basically dressing up your trolling in a nice dress, but we won't have it anymore. It is blatant trolling, really, and at best it opens up for everyone else to call you an irrational new-age hippie conspirarcy theorist, and if they do, the mods could hardly warn them for something like that, given what you've just said to those people.
It's not trolling, and I'm starting to think that thought is manifested more times then not to aid in peoples blanket rejection of what I have to say. Stop throwing labels at the unknown [Me] to justify your own viewpoint of it.


Throwing veiled insults at everyone in here, calling them delusional and confused is very much trolling, while maturely presenting your viewpoints and evidence for it is not. You couldn't handle the latter, so you started doing the former. This is solely a total failure on your part to communicate.

Niocan wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:Consider this a stern warning.
For what, responding to a thread addressed to my own perspective on the subjects included in said thread? I'm sorry, but get over yourself. You guys came in here, I flexed my poetic muscle after telling you how to 'decode' it, and now you're playing the hurt hero.


For what? For the insults. What about that is so hard to understand?

Heh, you flexed your poetic muscle? Man, I actually laughed out loud when I first read that. I guess we can throw in another insult to your list of offences: insulting poetry.

Oh yeah, you were just so deep, man, and when I couldn't comprehend that totally advanced level of verbal communcation that you engaged in my feelings were totally hurt.
And I'm supposed to be the one to get over myself?

Niocan wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:As long as you cannot provide people on these boards with solid evidence, preferably peer-reviewed, then you are not, as you must already know full-well by now, going to convince anyone of anything.
The fact that this doesn't seem to have dawned on you yet is frankly baffling.
Oh I know of this fact, and it saddens me to see such 'reasonable' people fall victim to the lack of personal thoughts or ability to take someones OPINION at face value.


We're supposed to take your opinions on face value, and not object to them when we see them for the nonsense they are? You should expect such objections at any time in a skeptics/reason forum. I really, really don't know why this has someone failed to register with you.

When your opinion is the subject of objections, you're supposed to argue for them or back them up with something concrete. That never happened. And one wonders why... Well no, I stopped wondering a long time ago, actually.

Ah well, I see Aught banned you, so... you're probably not even going to see this.


Btw, Hytegia.
Problem solved. It's just you an Exylos now, so it would be no problem to do this in PM, where you don't need to worry about outside interruptions.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:19 am
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Actually, when I made this thread - in the Skepticism Forum - in the Subset "Pseudoscience" - I thought it through as appropriate considering that the mere conventional section heading "Pseudoscience" implies that it's not actual Scientific discussion


If you note that context of this forum, it's purpose is for debunking pseudoscience, not spreading it. That's what we do here.
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:01 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Squawk wrote:
)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Actually, when I made this thread - in the Skepticism Forum - in the Subset "Pseudoscience" - I thought it through as appropriate considering that the mere conventional section heading "Pseudoscience" implies that it's not actual Scientific discussion


If you note that context of this forum, it's purpose is for debunking pseudoscience, not spreading it. That's what we do here.


Firstly, I would like to annote that there's no subheading that says "We only debunk things here hurr durr gtfo wit ur other ideaz." I just debunked your claim that this forum exists for the soul reason of debunking. You've placed that context upon the Forum - contexts are subjective to the content and the onlookers.

Secondly:
How can you defeat something you don't understand the flawed reasoning by? You'll win the battle of logic amoungst others, but not amoungst those who sit in the midst of it. It's like cutting weeds, only to regrow.
If you wish to "unroot" all of pseudoscience, then maybe it be best that you have a thread of it being posted for further notice and study for future arguments.
xD
A nice win-win, I'd say.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:00 pm
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:
Firstly, I would like to annote that there's no subheading that says "We only debunk things here hurr durr gtfo wit ur other ideaz." I just debunked your claim that this forum exists for the soul reason of debunking. You've placed that context upon the Forum - contexts are subjective to the content and the onlookers.


Quite. Go read any other thread in this forum. Content and context are obvious.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:Secondly:
How can you defeat something you don't understand the flawed reasoning by?

Could you rephrase that in English.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote: You'll win the battle of logic amoungst others, but not amoungst those who sit in the midst of it. It's like cutting weeds, only to regrow.

Sadly bullshit does seem to be something of a hydra, but your gardening analogy works well. If you don't continue to stomp it down it gradually gains a foothold and starts to take over.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:If you wish to "unroot" all of pseudoscience, then maybe it be best that you have a thread of it being posted for further notice and study for future arguments.


That would be this forum, even if it isn't explicity stated.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:xD
A nice win-win, I'd say.

What's the competition?
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:08 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

The reasoning bias towards the free flow of information: the fact that you make the absurd claim that it only applies to the subjects you like, and to nothing else.
8-)

Context or not, I doubt that there's a rule on this board that says that I cannot, within my own right, make a thread for the serious and public discussion of Metaphysics, as long as it's catagorized correctly.
There are rules, however, that say driving a thread off topic for personal reasons is considered trolling. That derailing a particular topic that you don't like simply because you want to change the topic of discussion is considered a tactic utelized by the very evil you claim to be against.

Welcome to Censorship and Biggotry. Population: Trolls.

If there is a rule on this forum that explicitly states that correctly catagorized threads are not in the same boat as any other thread on http://LeagueOfReason.co.uk simply because "we don't like it" then please, point it out to me. I would reccomend, however, you change what the entirety of the LeagueOfReason's standpoint on censorship. It would be considered an unreasonable lie to say that "I'm only for free speech that pertains to my intrests and any others that I don't like - though they are not directed towards me or my beliefs personally on any subject matter - I am adimately against them."
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:22 pm
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Perhaps I should spell it out explicity.

You complain about censorship, you complain thread derailment.

On the first you won't find a single example. Niocan has been banned for his insults to other members of the forum, not for the content of his posts.

You will further note that every post I have made in this thread has been a direct reaction to other posts, not a derailment. You can post whatever you like on this board (within the rules), but what you cannot do is ask that it isn't critiqued. When the subject at hand is metaphysics, and particularly when the discussion is of the supernatural, you will find that critique may well take the form of labeling such topics as make believe.

You will note that in any thread on any aspect of science posted in this forum there is the opportunity to call bullshit on the subjects raised. The issue at hand is justification for doing so. A postulate erected with zero evidence can be dismissed with equal evidence, which is what I have undertaken to do in this thread.

There is a simple means of preventing the discussion being labeled bullshit. Provide evidence for the things you say. Before you cry censorship or conformatism you might wish to have a look at my own posting history, in particular the threads I have created where the majority of the forum have disagreed with me. Try a search for "evolutionist". I am more than happy to raise controvertial subjects, indeed I enjoy doing so because I get to see if my position can be defended. If it can, fantastic.

Thus far your defense for your position is non existent, it's pleading, and it will hold precisely zero sway.
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:52 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

Squawk wrote:Perhaps I should spell it out explicity.

Indeed. Let us see where mistakes upon both sides lay.

You complain about censorship, you complain thread derailment.

Thread derailment is about trolling. Trolling is a legitimately identifyable tactic to draw away from information by attacking it - simply on the basis that one doesn't like what they're reading.

On the first you won't find a single example. Niocan has been banned for his insults to other members of the forum, not for the content of his posts.

Was the other member banned aswell?
I didn't speak of Niocan's ban - since his fate is within his own actions.

You will further note that every post I have made in this thread has been a direct reaction to other posts, not a derailment. You can post whatever you like on this board (within the rules), but what you cannot do is ask that it isn't critiqued. When the subject at hand is metaphysics, and particularly when the discussion is of the supernatural, you will find that critique may well take the form of labeling such topics as make believe.

Ofcourse yours have. But the initial ones were simply sandbag-method trolling, which derailed the entire thread into this trainwreck. It is not that I didn't want it to be critiqued, either: I simply stated that I didn't want it to be critiqued within this thread since it would throw the enitre topic askew.
Feel free to make 20 or 30 threads about this topic and how bullshit it is!

I just hoped that people could show self control and honor the OP's wishes by staying on topic. I feel like Kanye West just marched on my stage and said "orly gaiz btw ur all wrong lolol." If one is to say that they can do such a thing is to say that Kanye's not a drunk prick.

You will note that in any thread on any aspect of science posted in this forum there is the opportunity to call bullshit on the subjects raised. The issue at hand is justification for doing so. A postulate erected with zero evidence can be dismissed with equal evidence, which is what I have undertaken to do in this thread.

I know the postulate of zero evidence. I love that I use it for everything within my reasoning to myself.
If there is justification for doing so, it is out of poor manners toward the thread's entire standards. You could have made a conjoining thread to complain about how bullshit this thread is, or many other things. Or, hell, you could have partaked in the discussion and thrown something hypothetical out there to see where it led.
-.-

There is a simple means of preventing the discussion being labeled bullshit. Provide evidence for the things you say. Before you cry censorship or conformatism you might wish to have a look at my own posting history, in particular the threads I have created where the majority of the forum have disagreed with me. Try a search for "evolutionist". I am more than happy to raise controvertial subjects, indeed I enjoy doing so because I get to see if my position can be defended. If it can, fantastic.

The conceptis that it was never about evidence. *It's in the Pseudoscience Forum*
It was never about bringing forth evidence - but merely a discussion amoungst various theorists in order to refine our ideals amoungst ourselves in a serious manner. All of the things that cannot be shared and refined via PM to others in a critical analysis of, not only each other's ideals, but our own.
Well - that WAS the plan, anyhow.

Thus far your defense for your position is non existent, it's pleading, and it will hold precisely zero sway.

Who claimed I was taking a stance by making a statement for others to take a solid fact?

That is the root of this entire problem. It's people who have no courtesy or respect in any slight or decent form toward the ideals and theories of others - or respect for the concept of Threads.
This is not 4chan. People can't just post whatever the fuck they want within a thread to respond : they can make another thread, or simply decide not to read it and let fanatics curl up in their own fantasies. For whatever reason, courtesy is lost somewhere on the internet, and people think that they are invincible... Therefore they act in atrocious mannerisms that, if it was to ever be done in real life, would make them seem like complete troll douchebags (KANYE, BABI).
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:50 am
TheExylosUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:24 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Serious Metaphysical Discussion

ok I was content to see how this turned out before I posted, Squawk while you know I don't like things that Niocan says as well I do have to disagree with you on some of your statements. Here is why.



Science is the belief in finding truth of the world around us, and if Scientists were to stop all talks about things they believed to be make believe, Then there would be so many discoveries that we would be forced to live with out. I will give you a list of what I mean below. Now while I am pagan, pagans like Scientists don't agree on everything metaphysical. But there is one thing that we generally do agree on. Learning from one another is the most important thing that we can do.


Do I care if you were to comment on what you thought to be bullshit? Not even remotely because as I said above, that is to the best of my understanding what science is for, and I do not think hytegia said you could not comment on what was said, but we would ask that the blankest statement of prove it not be used, which has become the anti theist version of god did it, a blanket statement that both ignores and pushes things a scientist doesn't want to hear to a place of the scientists choosing. If you want to comment on what is said then is it too much to ask for the comments to be VALID comments on said topic.

He is correct that it was never said anywhere that this forums was just about debunking things that scientists don't believe in, and the general context of the forums is not the rules of the forums, If that was the case and we applied it to everything in life then freedom of religion would be a fallacy, the right to vote would be nothing more than a show piece. Something used to make the masses believe that they are in control when in fact they are slaves, unless you of coarse would like to let niocan believe he is correct . I am a Hellenistic pagan and a hedonist so trust me if I am to take part in this discussion, even the things you may consider make believe will be held to as high a standard as I can, see my list below.

So anyway here is my list of things we would live with out if scientists did not discuss them,

The world is round- The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BCE,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.


The sun is the center of the universe- In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos proposed an alternate cosmology (arrangement of the universe): a heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe (hence he is sometimes known as the "Greek Copernicus"). His astronomical ideas were not well-received, however, and only a few brief references to them are preserved. We know the name of one follower of Aristarchus: Seleucus of Seleucia.

The Almagest- is one of the most influential books in the history of Western astronomy. In this book, Ptolemy explained how to predict the behavior of the planets, as Hipparchus could not, with the introduction of a new mathematical tool, the equant. The Almagest gave a comprehensive treatment of astronomy, incorporating theorems, models, and observations from many previous mathematicians. This fact may explain its survival, in contrast to more specialized works that were neglected and lost. Ptolemy placed the planets in the order that would remain standard until it was displaced by the heliocentric system and the Tychonic system:

The interpretation of Hellenistic science varies widely. At one extreme is the view of the English classical scholar, Cornford, who believed that "all the most important and original work was done in the three centuries from 600 to 300 BC"[26] At the other is the view of the Italian physicist and mathematician, Lucio Russo, who claims that scientific method was actually born in the 3rd century BC, to be forgotten during the Roman period and only revived in the Renaissance.[27](Though this I disagree with, only because I think during the roman era the emphasis war on weapons of war, something that america has begun to do, regardless of what they may say, it is still a fact of history that most every science invention if it could be, it was turned into a weapon. Doesn't mean the belief is dead just that it has been subverted.)


So my whole post boils down to, agree with what we are discussing, or don't doesn't matter but we have the right to discuss it, and like any discussion or debate we have the right to ask that trolls find somewhere else to troll.
n the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.
Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:25 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 2 of 3
 [ 47 posts ] 
Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests