Wilco and atheism

[Gobias Industries]

is that like splooge?

 

"moist"

[Panther]

Okay after reading almost every post since my last one I give in "existence is a blunder" its true. Until we can actual prove that there is more there isn

[TheMaker]

So science can basically imagine a bunch of theories into existence and its logical but religions do the same and its foolish.

 

Science has a theory. Science can imagine something, but religion claims to know and believe what it proclaims. Religion offers truth claims. Sorry, you're being stupid. Try harder to understand the claims made by science and religion, please.

 

The "believers" in this thread have gotten exponentionally dumber since I exited it.

[M. (hristine]

[TheMaker]

Well, it's true. Science doesn't pull an idea out of thin air and say "DUH DIS BE'S WHAT IS REALS." Science formulates theories based on evidence and intuition, allowing for every possibility that a given postulation could be proven false. A scientist may strongly suspect that his theories are actual - which is to say he may believe it not on faith, but rather physical evidence - however no physicist worth his salt would die to protect an ultimately unprovable theory, nor would he live his life allowing for no other possibility than that he is correct. Religion just pulls stupid bullshit out of its ass and says, in spite of a powerful dearth of evidence, "DUH DIS BE'S WHAT IS REALS." It is childish and counterintuitive. All claims to the contrary are naive.

 

I don't get flustered during these debates because I feel I'm losing ground; clearly, I get flustered because believers become desperate and start scrambling upon the rocks of reason as they try in vain to continue a conversation that they will always find themselves on the losing end of.

 

P.S., I'm just back from the bar, I've had a few drinks, and I may not want to leave this murk now that I have allowed myself to sink back into it. Whoever is in charge of banning posters should keep a very close eye on me tonight.

 

P.P.S., The quoting thing still eludes me. Advance apologies about that.

 

P.P.P.S., I would rather play the Feud with Richard Dawson than go bowling with him.

[markosis]

We can say, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that they are zoological accidents (though I wouldnt phrase it as such) precisely because art springs from the mind of man, an evolved ape.

 

Well, being a songwriter I can say that my best ideas come from somewhere besides my mind. Where that is, I have no idea, but its surely nothing any scientific theory or organized religious doctrine can explain. It just is. Any artist worth their salt will say the same thing, for the most part.

 

Can you really tell me that

is of this world? The way it makes me feel, there's no way someone can just slap any rational explanation on it. (tongue half in cheek)

 

Try harder to understand the claims made by science and religion, please.

 

That's one option. Or, you can try option B, which is to leave the statistics for those that need things explained to them, and figure out all this stuff for yourself. Figuring it out for yourself is a bit tougher of a path, but ultimately much more rewarding. Give it a try. Everyone seems so hung up on "finding answers." The only way to find answers is to seek them yourself, not to listen to a theologist or scientist because in either one's case, they've found their own answers through their own experiences. Do the same thing for yourself and you'll find the answers you're looking for. Hopefully, like myself, you will see that whether its science or religion or spirituality or trial and error or whatever the method one uses to quantify this existence, its all the same thing.

 

I think everyone needs to stop being so hung up on the supposed "differences" between what we feel, and see the similarities. Life, beliefs, ideas, in all of it there is such ambiguity, I don't see any way to discount someone else's opinion because if you take off your blinders you'll see that you're probably saying the exact same thing just in different ways. And that's the beauty of humanity, that we are so different and we can choose to interpret our existence any way we want to, and at the same time we're just like the next person, we're just trying to live our lives and make sense of it all. We are all beautifully different as well as the same.

 

Finally, I've read most of this thread and I've come across alot of intolerant, even arrogant talk. No matter what you may think, to put down someone's beliefs or to label someone's thinking as "backwards", that's not going to foster a lot of tolerance for your beliefs. Its only going to create more barriers, and in coversations such as these we need to be more understanding of each individual's thoughts because a. they are entitled to feel anything they want to and b. even if they call it something different than you call it, or if they use a different method of discovering it, its really the same thing.

[aricandover]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

It's possible to vigorously defend your positions without acting like an asshole. Thanks.

[Spawn's dad]

Well, it's true. Science doesn't pull an idea out of thin air and say "DUH DIS BE'S WHAT IS REALS." Science formulates theories based on evidence and intuition, allowing for every possibility that a given postulation could be proven false. A scientist may strongly suspect that his theories are actual - which is to say he may believe it not on faith, but rather physical evidence - however no physicist worth his salt would die to protect an ultimately unprovable theory, nor would he live his life allowing for no other possibility than that he is correct. Religion just pulls stupid bullshit out of its ass and says, in spite of a powerful dearth of evidence, "DUH DIS BE'S WHAT IS REALS." It is childish and counterintuitive. All claims to the contrary are naive.

 

I don't get flustered during these debates because I feel I'm losing ground; clearly, I get flustered because believers become desperate and start scrambling upon the rocks of reason as they try in vain to continue a conversation that they will always find themselves on the losing end of.

 

P.S., I'm just back from the bar, I've had a few drinks, and I may not want to leave this murk now that I have allowed myself to sink back into it. Whoever is in charge of banning posters should keep a very close eye on me tonight.

 

P.P.S., The quoting thing still eludes me. Advance apologies about that.

 

P.P.P.S., I would rather play the Feud with Richard Dawson than go bowling with him.

 

 

ok

 

It's possible to vigorously defend your positions without acting like an asshole. Thanks.

 

 

ok

[M. (hristine]

Would it be conjecture to say that the Maker is a mean drunk, and would we need to have some empirical process in place to scientifically prove it?

[Spawn's dad]

Would it be conjecture to say that M. Chris has some mean cans, and would we need to have some empirical process in place to scientifically prove it?

[M. (hristine]

"a team of experts"

[Spawn's dad]

Not sure that would help. Bishop Berkeley argued all was mind. He argued that we can't know if an object exists, but only that it was being perceived by mind.

[M. (hristine]

I am perceiving my cans with both my hands and my mind RIGHT NOW!

[Spawn's dad]

I am perceiving my cans with both my hands and my mind RIGHT NOW!

 

 

Christ. *reported*

[M. (hristine]

Oh sorry, what? I was distracted.

[Spawn's dad]

It's possible to vigorously defend your positions without acting like an asshole. Thanks.

 

Ieyyyyyyyyyyyye, wanna be a moderator. Ieyyyyyyyyyyyye wanna moderate your life!

[Good Old Neon]

Well, being a songwriter I can say that my best ideas come from somewhere besides my mind. Where that is, I have no idea, but its surely nothing any scientific theory or organized religious doctrine can explain. It just is. Any artist worth their salt will say the same thing, for the most part.

 

Can you really tell me that

is of this world? The way it makes me feel, there's no way someone can just slap any rational explanation on it. (tongue half in cheek)

 

Yes - we can. If you're really interested in understanding the evolution of music, I suggest you stop by the library and pick up Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession

 

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Musi...n/dp/0525949690

[Spawn's dad]

or, alternatively, you could just listen for yourself.

[Spawn's dad]

or, alternatively, you could just listen for yourself.

 

 

It's possible to vigorously defend your positions without acting like an asshole. Thanks.

[Good Old Neon]

Would it be conjecture to say that M. Chris has some mean cans, and would we need to have some empirical process in place to scientifically prove it?

 

An illustrative photograph would set my mind at ease and help me to believe.

[Good Old Neon]

No, actually the onus is on you -- "a" theism.

 

By very nature of the word you are the contrarian.

 

No, not really - in the reality based science community, it is theology that presents the contrarian argument. Nowhere within the world of science is it accepted that a higher power exists - theology and religion claims otherwise, so, in fact, the onus is on your team to present empirical evidence of the existance of god.

[Spawn's dad]

I'm rubber, you're glue.

[Good Old Neon]

I'm rubber, you're glue.

 

Yeah, pretty much.

[markosis]

Yes - we can. If you're really interested in understanding the evolution of music, I suggest you stop by the library and pick up Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession

 

I've seen that book. I'm sure the book is, like I've been trying to say all along, just a different way of arriving at a similar conclusion ie "music sounds good and makes me feel good." I'd rather spend my time reading Bukowski (who was surely channeling some other force in his writing. If you don't believe me, read the first 10 pages of Women).