Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
And ProfM I didn't know you did drugs, goodness.
Not as much as I used to. When I go down to Oregon, I make a point of going to a rave and indulging, but it's been nearly two years since.
That's fairly responsible. I've never been to a rave, and I kind of wish I had when I still indulged in empathogenic stimulants.
Haha Apparently one of the listed side effects of LSD is "unwanted life-changing spirtual experience." And here I thought it was all that E I had taken that night.
Man, sometimes I wonder if doing drugs might be a bad idea.
E an be LSD based
In the sense that your big mac could have whopper meat in it. But no, it effectively never happens.
And ProfM I didn't know you did drugs, goodness.
Not as much as I used to. When I go down to Oregon, I make a point of going to a rave and indulging, but it's been nearly two years since.
That's fairly responsible. I've never been to a rave, and I kind of wish I had when I still indulged in empathogenic stimulants.
I tried E a couple times up here in Juneau with some friends, but it is just not the same outside of a rave environment. It's like, I have all this empathy at the ready, but no community to share it with.
Hell, I'd probably love a proper rave without the aid of drugs. I hear complaints from my friends about candy kids and the rave community, but I swear to god they have got something going on there.
I'm fairly convinced that The God Delusion convinced very, very few people who weren't already atheists. It didn't create converts. But a book called "Humanism is Great!" probably wouldn't have made it to the NYT bestseller list. So while Loren Michael says that the title probably wasn't beneficial for Dawkins personally, I have to disagree. It sold some books, and guarantees that Dawkins is going to be remembered as an ideological crusader and not just a brilliant scientist.
Well, beneficial in terms of him winning religious friends and the like. It's a great title for the book's intended audience.
Also, Sam Harris never used the word "atheist" in The End of Faith and has stated that he doesn't enjoy using the term or having it applied to him.
I like differentiating between atheists who are skeptics from people who merely hold the belief "God does not exist", but a) technically speaking, both are atheists -- atheist does not mean "Smartest dude in the room", and b) adeist would be a stupid term, both because it makes no sense what distinguishes an atheist from an adeist, and also because an alpha primitive is greek, so it would be stupid to use it on a latinate term.
It's pretty obvious that when Dawkins/Harris/et. al. are referred to as atheists, the word 'atheism' is being used as shorthand for a specific brand of physicalist humanist skepticism. You can be an "atheist" without being a physicalist, or a humanist, or a skeptic.
Which ties in to my problem with atheism as an ideological movement - it conflates what is being argued for with what is being argued against. If you argue for skepticism, or physicalism, then atheism will naturally logically follow. If you argue for humanism, atheism does not necessarily logically follow, but it makes atheism a lot easier to swallow. If you start out arguing against God, you're going to alienate your potential arguments. This is not a moral argument, it is a practical one. I'm not sitting here going "augh, atheists are so offensive!" I'm sitting here going, "augh, atheists are so bad at propaganda!"
I'm fairly convinced that The God Delusion convinced very, very few people who weren't already atheists. It didn't create converts. But a book called "Humanism is Great!" probably wouldn't have made it to the NYT bestseller list. So while Loren Michael says that the title probably wasn't beneficial for Dawkins personally, I have to disagree. It sold some books, and guarantees that Dawkins is going to be remembered as an ideological crusader and not just a brilliant scientist.
You're a smart guy Feral.
But apparently not smart enough to just check that checkbox are you some kind of goose or something I'm the goddamn batman
My dad is trying to get me to read the god delusion. I will have to at some point I guess.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
It's been awhile since I read it, but I want to say that you and Dawkins might be talking apples and oranges. Evolution here would describe the origins of human propensity to act in a way that we would call moral, or at least altruistic.
Ugh, no, Haikus are awful (in English), just stop.
I see you have an opinion.
I have a different one.
Look man, why take a form that was designed around a language that is nothing like ours and suits our language terribly when there are tons of forms that suit our language swimmingly?
Posts
That's fairly responsible. I've never been to a rave, and I kind of wish I had when I still indulged in empathogenic stimulants.
Didn't agree with what I have read of it. On morals and evolution.
What's your take, then?
Oh, Internet. You're the best.
they are restricting my ankles!
I tried E a couple times up here in Juneau with some friends, but it is just not the same outside of a rave environment. It's like, I have all this empathy at the ready, but no community to share it with.
Hell, I'd probably love a proper rave without the aid of drugs. I hear complaints from my friends about candy kids and the rave community, but I swear to god they have got something going on there.
Well, beneficial in terms of him winning religious friends and the like. It's a great title for the book's intended audience.
Also, Sam Harris never used the word "atheist" in The End of Faith and has stated that he doesn't enjoy using the term or having it applied to him.
Barely.
I think that an entire religious debate done in haiku would be genuinely enjoyable.
Edit: Not saying that Trochaic Heptameter is haiku.
You say there is God
I see only the fleshmeat
Prove your space daddy
Turrets, and lots of 'em.
I play zerg.
You're a smart guy Feral.
But apparently not smart enough to just check that checkbox are you some kind of goose or something I'm the goddamn batman
That without a divine lawgiver there can be no natural right or wrong, which is what I define morals as
so basically, there's no inherent moral rules anywhere
there's no thing you can physically do that you for some other reason can't
I...hm.
I thought you were talking about Supreme Commander 2.
Woops.
pull them halfway up
jeez, must we do all the thinking around here?
some people might argue that
being moral because you want a reward (heaven) or are afraid of being punished (hell) is inferior to being moral because it's the right thing to do
also I am not a poet so all the trochaic heptameter I know is gravemind quotes
This is a brilliant idea. You just need mod support to infract anybody who breaks the metre.
This should be a new rule for all religion threads. As soon as a mod comes in and says "religion thread rules apply here," it is on!
It's been awhile since I read it, but I want to say that you and Dawkins might be talking apples and oranges. Evolution here would describe the origins of human propensity to act in a way that we would call moral, or at least altruistic.
I see you have an opinion.
I have a different one.
If by moral guidelines you just mean Nice Rules To Follow If We're Gonna Have A Good Time Upon This Earth then yeah, sure
but if you mean like, these things are evil and these are good, then I disagree
Inqui your uptight
Relax, man, smoke a blunt, dude
Smoke your cares away
God is empty just like me
atheism now
yes let us talk about inqui's uptight relax
Look man, why take a form that was designed around a language that is nothing like ours and suits our language terribly when there are tons of forms that suit our language swimmingly?
Oh god it's combining two awful things into one.
more like gag reflex
So you're arguing against Objectivism, basically.
I can get behind that.
Especially Adore.
But wouldn't it be funnier to try to force their anger into sonnets?