New age and its problems

[scalyblue]

@scalyblue-

I have a better idea. Instead of you throwing a temper tantrum why don't you ask me 25 questions? One per post. I will render my answers to your question, and we can let the general public of this forum decide if the answers rendered are that of a lunatic?
We can even make a thread out of it with a poll and whatnot - place it in the Gerneral Chat, or make it a sticky.

You have 25 questions. No insinuations, since the questions can be on everything and can be used to refine the answer from the last one. If I'm as you make me out to be, then surely a jury of your own peers in a non-dilluded state can put 2 and 2 together for themselves.
It would be fun.

Because your track record on answering questions has already been superb....oh, that's right, you can't type sarcasm.

Implying that a cogent argument is a temper tantrum because it doesn't agree with you is juvenile.

I don't particularly care what the opinions of the general public of this forum are and they are as irrelevant to this conversation as the phase of the moon. You seem to care, though, and I can't fathom why. If you say something stupid in a thread, I'll probably call you out on it. If you say something that isn't stupid on a thread, I'll probably agree with you.

Being as it may, I don't adhere to the social contract and I don't pull punches; I won't be a party to such a debate because it would only be a reiteration of the key questions you have avoided in this thread, and this thread provides a plethora of evidence that you don't have the guns to bring to a debate with me. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm sure you can find a soapbox to play wounded pagan on elsewhere. I will not be a party to it.

The idea is that I'm not here to prove ANYTHING beyond the fact that I'm not irrational, incompitent, and dilluded due to the fact of my belief.

I'm not set out to Prove that my belief is Provable and has a shit ton of Evidence.

Mutually inclusive, wolfie. One leads to the other. I'd almost say that the concepts were--I don't know, linked in some way that is greater than the concepts alone. It's almost as though I am saying that the very idea that you believe in something without evidence is irrational, incompetent, and deluded. Strange, after all..the person who said that everything is linked seems to segregate each of these 'proofs' when it is convenient.

Believing in spirits without actual evidence is irrational, incompetent, and deluded. Any rational, competent, and lucid viewpoints that you may also have are irrelevant, as those viewpoints do not negate the nature of your belief. By stating that these are your beliefs, you are also stating that you are irrational, incompetent, and deluded. The concepts are mutually inclusive of each other. You cannot state that you believe in something without evidence and also state that you are rational and scientific.

The only way to retain these beliefs and also be considered rational, competent, and lucid is to have demonstrable evidence for these beliefs. Until then, there is absolutely no difference what-so-ever between your beliefs and a belief in the god of abraham, or a belief in the capacitor goblins, or in karma, or in ley lines, or--and here's the big kicker--ANYTHING that ANYBODY can pull out of their ASS at any time. There is no difference, none.

So you can't argue that you're rational, competent, and lucid without furnishing that evidence. You can't, and attempting to is an exercise in futility.

The only thing that you can argue is that retaining this irrational, incompetent, and deluded belief does not impact your judgment, action, or logic in other matters in any other way and I frankly don't buy one lick of it. I do not think you, as a human being, are capable of suspending all reason, rationality, and logic for this one thing and only this one thing. I'd go so far as to say that it is impossible.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Mutually inclusive, wolfie. One leads to the other. I'd almost say that the concepts were--I don't know, linked in some way that is greater than the concepts alone. It's almost as though I am saying that the very idea that you believe in something without evidence is irrational, incompetent, and deluded.

basically. not that i am not trying to say that you are irrational in everything, or even that you are an irrational person, whatever that means. no. i am just trying to say that this particular belief you have, in relation to spirituality, is irrational.

 

[scalyblue]

basically. not that i am not trying to say that you are irrational in everything, or even that you are an irrational person, whatever that means. no. i am just trying to say that this particular belief you have, in relation to spirituality, is irrational.

A person is as rational as their least rational belief is, imo. An entire machine could be built to handle superb stresses, but in the end it is only as strong as its weakest component.

 

[5810Singer]

basically. not that i am not trying to say that you are irrational in everything, or even that you are an irrational person, whatever that means. no. i am just trying to say that this particular belief you have, in relation to spirituality, is irrational.

A person is as rational as their least rational belief is, imo. An entire machine could be built to handle superb stresses, but in the end it is only as strong as its weakest component.

I just want to make sure that I understand your position.

You consider anyone with a belief in anything "supernatural" as irrational, correct?

 

[borrofburi]

A person is as rational as their least rational belief is, imo. An entire machine could be built to handle superb stresses, but in the end it is only as strong as its weakest component.

I just want to make sure that I understand your position.

You consider anyone with a belief in anything "supernatural" as irrational, correct?

I can't speak for scaly, but I would note that the irrational part is not inherent in the supernatural, it's due to the supernatural having no evidence. A rational person *could* believe in the supernatural if they had reasonable evidence for the supernatural (otherwise it is *by definition* irrational). I don't know if I agree with scaly in his labeling of a whole person irrational based on one irrational quirk, but I thought I'd clarify where the irrationality lies (not necessarily in the supernatural, but in the "faith" or the belief without reasonable evidence).

 

[e2iPi]

A rational person *could* believe in the supernatural if they had reasonable evidence for the supernatural

If there was evidence of the supernatural--by evidence, I mean repeatable empirical evidence, not anecdotal--then it would no longer be supernatural, it would become, by definition, natural.
So, no, a rational person cannot believe in the supernatural.

-1

 

[borrofburi]

A rational person *could* believe in the supernatural if they had reasonable evidence for the supernatural

If there was evidence of the supernatural--by evidence, I mean repeatable empirical evidence, not anecdotal--then it would no longer be supernatural, it would become, by definition, natural.
So, no, a rational person cannot believe in the supernatural.

-1

I would argue your definition of supernatural is limited and unhelpful. The existence of, say, a spirit realm that we can interact with and communicate with but not terribly well could certainly be rational to believe in, provided evidence, and yet would be weird enough that I think a supernatural / natural distinction would be advantageous to us.

 

[e2iPi]

I would argue your definition of supernatural is limited and unhelpful. The existence of, say, a spirit realm that we can interact with and communicate with but not terribly well could certainly be rational to believe in, provided evidence, and yet would be weird enough that I think a supernatural / natural distinction would be advantageous to us.

Of course my definition of supernatural is limited and unhelpful--the entire concept of the supernatural is limited and unhelpful.

Exactly where would we draw the line between the natural and the supernatural? If the "supernatural" world could affect our world, is it not necessarily a component of the natural world?

-1

 

[borrofburi]

I would argue your definition of supernatural is limited and unhelpful. The existence of, say, a spirit realm that we can interact with and communicate with but not terribly well could certainly be rational to believe in, provided evidence, and yet would be weird enough that I think a supernatural / natural distinction would be advantageous to us.

Of course my definition of supernatural is limited and unhelpful--the entire concept of the supernatural is limited and unhelpful.

Exactly where would we draw the line between the natural and the supernatural? If the "supernatural" world could affect our world, is it not necessarily a component of the natural world?

-1

It depends on how you define "natural" and "supernatural". Sure, you can define "supernatural" as "anything that has no effect on our natural world", but I tend to define it as anything that has an entire system of cause and effects that are only loosely related to us, we see this sort of "supernatural" world in a lot of anime with "spirit world" or "demon realm"s. I imagine if the matrix existed then the "real world" would effectively be a supernatural world for those living in the matrix, although the analogy doesn't quite work as well there because there seems to be more cause and effect contact there than I would normally like. Perhaps better said is any spatial reality that is imposed over our own that can only affect our own at specific places in space-time; if such a thing were ever to be discovered to exist, I think we would be justified in calling it supernatural.

 

[borrofburi]

First some reactions:

Addressed already. The fact that you keep bringing this up is a sign that you're either not getting the point (being stupid) or that you're trying to make it sound like I'm claiming to be super badass OVER9000 (ad hominem).

First, it's not ad hominem unless it's used as the basis for an argument. If I were to call you "a moron with piss breath who is so stupid I'll be surprised if you can even tie your own shoe laces", it would not be an ad hominem. If I were to instead say "you're a moron therefore your belief in the spirit realm is not justified" it would be an ad hominem. If I were to say "your belief in the spirit realm is not justified for reasons A, B, and C, and therefore you're an idiot", it would also not be an ad hominem. It is ONLY an ad hominem when personal character traits are used as the basis of an argument, attacking your personal character traits for any other reason, while a dick move, is not and can not be an ad hominem. Moreover, scaly has *always* attacked your beliefs, your ideas, not you in particular and thus this can not only never be an ad hominem, it's even hard for it to be a dick move.

More importantly, he brings it up again and again because you're not understanding him, not the other way around. He understands you quite well; unless you want to posit that you perfectly understand everyone in this thread while everyone else in this thread except you (and possibly singer and of course niocan) just "doesn't understand you". It's kind of like talking to a furry, which I guess you probably are (judging from your avatar), so I should clarify that: I don't hate furries because of their sexual fetish, I hate them because of their persecution complex and their continuous stream of "you just don't understand me!" bullshit. So when I say "it's like talking to a furry" I don't mean it from a "all furries are <insert negative quality like "stupid" or "disgusting" here>" angle, I mean it from a "every furry I've ever met or heard of has had a persecution complex" angle.

But if you understand him, please, respond to his "tell me" lines.

You can measure [the activity of rain spirits] without being a Shaman or Pagan. It's called a Weather Machine.

But can a shaman or pagan produce any measurable results better than, say, any other average person, or even more impressive, better than the weatherman? You know, evidence? And if not, then is it not indistinguishable from nothing?

They have been [trying to communicate with spirits]. Few have succeeded in instances.

Oh good, then they should produce measurable results, i.e. evidence. Or is it again indistinguishable from nothing?

One thing I would like further clarification on is how precisely rain spirits are different from capacitor gremlins. Also: is your position faith based or not? On the one hand you say it's faith based, on the other hand you say you have "personal experience" as evidence, and I am not certain which you actually ascribe to.

 

[borrofburi]

Now for the more important post

You haven't experienced it - and you don't really need to. As stated.
Konstantinos and slews of others have experienced such things. So, it's not my own oppinion, my friend. It's not something I made up off the top of my head in a clever to spoon-feed you.
It's my personal experiences - and as such is measurable proof to none but myself. It doesn't really effect you to not experience it.

While scaly can continue or not with his rather brute-force method***, I'd rather point out that I've had religious experiences (I believe that's the correct anthropological term), but I know better than to think those are valid evidence. Here's why: I am human, by brain is quite easily tricked, and I can give a multitude of examples of how ALL of our brains are easily tricked, the most obvious one is we have blind spots in each of our eyes, yet we never notice because our sub conscious brain fakes the images for us, it does photoshop magic and fills in the blank spot so you don't even notice. If you've ever looked anywhere and not had a hole in your vision you have experienced outright lies from your subconscious. You can also see how week our psychological security is with things like cold reading or the forer effect. I could go on, but it'll be much easier if you take 30 to 40 minutes out of your day and watch these (roughly linked by order of importance, I put two divisions in because the first 5 videos are most important, the next 2 are also related but are sort of "more of the same", and the last 3 videos are starting to distance themselves a bit from the specific topic at hand):
On how bad memory is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I
Pitfalls of Thinking: Confirmation Bias (1/2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34BhEgO_es
Pitfalls of Thinking: Confirmation Bias (2/2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvj7p7Clq0c
I know some of these videos don't directly address you, most of them address, well primarily YEC fundy christians, but many of the pitfalls of thinking are the same between them and you, the primary difference is they expect everyone to agree with them, while you don't necessarily.
On the many security vulnerabilities and biases we have in our brains (including quirk of our memory, as well as quirk of what we consider a "hit" for paranormal concepts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc
One thing I would note in the above video, the thing I am trying to get through your head: Our perceptions (and our memories) aren't always trustworthy. Anecdote, even personal anecdote, is, at best "a person's memory of a perception of an event". And, "single observations have no statistical value". The frame at 8:55 gives 8 of the reasons why anecdote, even your own personal anecdote, is untrustworthy.
More reasons why trusting your own mind (especially as infallible) is not necessarily the best of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c

On the topic of critical thinking (fairly related, you seem to avoid flaws and biases in your own thinking): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
One thing I would note in the above video is that, so far as I could see, he never pointed out that any position that by definition can not be shown to be unfounded (i.e. untestable) is a flawed one.
On why faith is worthless (replace all word of "gods" with "spirits" and you should get it; the important part is the bit about fallible brains): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Far less important but still tangentially related:
Why common sense is worthless (fairly related to the topic at hand, in the sense that it shows a bit why personal experience is untrustworthy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A
Why science is not at all faith based (also only tangentially related): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI
On the topic of open mindedness (again, only tangentially related):
On spiritualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l95-OgVnrXk
Lecture start (whole thing is well worth watching): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZr4mLwGxw4





***which, isn't going to work scaly, once that person admits to thinking personal experience is proof, the only working tactic is explaining why one should not necessarily trust their own personal experience, at this point hammering them with strong words won't work because they will forever be able to say "I've seen it, I know it's true" in the same way Niocan does with his colloidal silver; think of it like talking to a creationist, once you find out that they reject all transitional fossils as "not transitional" you have to explain to them the whole concept of fuzzy logic and why this fossil *isn't* "too similar" and why that fossil isn't "too different" and until they understand what evolution actually is (and not their crazed strawman version), further conversation isn't going to do anything because they will always point out that you haven't provided the crocoduck which will prove the warped strawman concept of evolution they have in their heads.
Here, instead of explaining what evolution actually is and why transitional fossils are transitional and are evidence for evolution, it's time to show all the reasons why personal experience is not proof nor evidence even to the person who experienced it. His idea is that personal experience is proof for the person involved; thus he has personal experience so it's not irrational for him to believe, while we don't have said personal experience so it would be irrational for us to believe and it's obvious that we would think it's irrational for him to believe because we don't have the same proof. The problem here is that he misses that we understand he thinks he has evidence, but we also understand why personal experience is not evidence even for the person in concern. He thinks we mean personal experience is not evidence to other people and he fully admits that, but he still thinks it's valid for himself and thus it is not irrational for him to believe.

 

[scalyblue]

***

Duly noted.

 

[e2iPi]

[
It depends on how you define "natural" and "supernatural". Sure, you can define "supernatural" as "anything that has no effect on our natural world", but I tend to define it as anything that has an entire system of cause and effects that are only loosely related to us, we see this sort of "supernatural" world in a lot of anime with "spirit world" or "demon realm"s. I imagine if the matrix existed then the "real world" would effectively be a supernatural world for those living in the matrix, although the analogy doesn't quite work as well there because there seems to be more cause and effect contact there than I would normally like. Perhaps better said is any spatial reality that is imposed over our own that can only affect our own at specific places in space-time; if such a thing were ever to be discovered to exist, I think we would be justified in calling it supernatural.

String theory with it's extra parallel dimensions and quantum entanglement are two things which could easily fit into your definition of supernatural. Perhaps string theory is a bad example as it only truly exists as a mathematical construct, (although the fact that string theory was the first thing that jumped into my mind when thinking of examples of the supernatural is a bit telling--I'm looking at you, string theorists :roll: )

Quantum entanglement would definitely fit the bill for something which only affects our reality at specific places under specific circumstances but for which there is overwhelmingly compelling evidence. Although strange, I doubt if anyone would call it supernatural (except maybe freshman physics students). What Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance" is now considered quite natural.

-1

 

[borrofburi]

I think quantum entanglement comes quite close to supernatural, just not quite because it doesn't always exist and only manifest itself at certain times, but rather it only exists at certain times and we can rigidly cause it to happen (i.e. there is a strong cause and effect between "our world" and what happens with quantum entanglement). Also an addition to supernatural is concepts like spirits which are sentient.

But moreso I just think that defining "supernatural" in the way you do makes it by definition "non existent" and any definition that is by definition non-existent is kind of worthless and therefore the word itself must have a different meaning.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Oh-
I cought scaly's entire basis for the argument earlier when he said that Religious people were more profound to pitfalls than non-religious, and suggested as part of the hypothetical that he wouldn't bet his insurance rates on it, even though the person is certainly qualifyed.

Moreover, I was trying to point out the flaw in his logic by (over and over again) explaining that just be cause someone believes something, it does not make one irrational, illogical, or dilluded. It would be like saying "Well you've lied once in your life - therefore you're a liar" and whatnot. I was countering with the idea that JUST because I believe something it doesn't make me irrational.
Hells, then he contenues to pick at something that's NOT THE ISSUE. -_- He contenues whipping a dead horse. We KNOW he thinks the belief is irrational, but he has yet to prove that the Belief makes the person irrational. The person who accepts Science as it is, and recognizes the importance of Evidence to support things (and, in this mindset, never presents his beliefs as fact KNOWING that all he has is personal experience).


That is what I've been trying to say the entire time.

 

[scalyblue]

Oh-
I cought scaly's entire basis for the argument earlier when he said that Religious people were more profound to pitfalls than non-religious, and suggested as part of the hypothetical that he wouldn't bet his insurance rates on it, even though the person is certainly qualifyed.

Moreover, I was trying to point out the flaw in his logic by (over and over again) explaining that just be cause someone believes something, it does not make one irrational, illogical, or dilluded. It would be like saying "Well you've lied once in your life - therefore you're a liar" and whatnot. I was countering with the idea that JUST because I believe something it doesn't make me irrational.
Hells, then he contenues to pick at something that's NOT THE ISSUE. -_- He contenues whipping a dead horse. We KNOW he thinks the belief is irrational, but he has yet to prove that the Belief makes the person irrational. The person who accepts Science as it is, and recognizes the importance of Evidence to support things (and, in this mindset, never presents his beliefs as fact KNOWING that all he has is personal experience).


That is what I've been trying to say the entire time.

believing in an irrational, illogical, and deluded idea makes you an irrational, illogical, and deluded person. All humans are irrational, illogical, and deluded about some things and cannot prevent it, so why add to those things?

A person who has lied once in their life is, indeed, a liar--a liar being one who lies.

How does one judge the rationality of a person? by judging their beliefs. If a person's entire world view is based on an irrational idea, then that makes for an irrational person.

You can't honestly accept science as it is, recognize the importance of evidence to support things, and in the same breath say that you believe in a spirit world. You...just...can't.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

believing in an irrational, illogical, and deluded idea makes you an irrational, illogical, and deluded person. All humans are irrational, illogical, and deluded about some things and cannot prevent it, so why add to those things?

A person who has lied once in their life is, indeed, a liar--a liar being one who lies.

So, believeing in Santa once in your life makes you as dilluded as I am, then? Your words say, spacifically, that if you have been irrational once in your life, then you are Irrational, dilluded, and so on.

If in doubt - YouTube a valid point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjEC3DTUyxs

How does one judge the rationality of a person? by judging their beliefs. If a person's entire world view is based on an irrational idea, then that makes for an irrational person.

But that worldview accepts science, and a firm seperation between Faith and Evidence...
As stated. Over and over again.

You can't honestly accept science as it is, recognize the importance of evidence to support things, and in the same breath say that you believe in a spirit world. You...just...can't.

Is that the whole reason? The fact that you can't understand the concept of it and how it can work in a duality with what one believes and knows?
I've already said that there's a wall. This "WALL" is the found difference between the two is how I approach the Physical, and how I approach the Physical. Is it Irrational to believe that?

 

[scalyblue]

So, believeing in Santa once in your life makes you as dilluded as I am, then? Your words say, spacifically, that if you have been irrational once in your life, then you are Irrational, dilluded, and so on.

your assumption that I ever did is incorrect. I also did not say that, I said that if you have lied once in your life, you are a liar. That doesn't change. Cheers for your reading comprehension though.

If in doubt - YouTube a valid point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjEC3DTUyxs

if, by youtube, you mean thunderf00t, and if by 'valid point' you mean 'a part of a demonstration of reasoning whose relevance is tangential to the discussion.

But that worldview accepts science, and a firm seperation between Faith and Evidence...
As stated. Over and over again.

Does it? How can you have a firm separation between faith and evidence if you ascribe causality of events to occurances without evidence. You can't accept science and think that spirits exist, without any evidence that spirits exist.

Is that the whole reason? The fact that you can't understand the concept of it and how it can work in a duality with what one believes and knows?
I've already said that there's a wall. This "WALL" is the found difference between the two is how I approach the Physical, and how I approach the Physical. Is it Irrational to believe that?

Is that the whole reason? Yes, yes it is. the very idea that you feel you must "approach the physical" is irrational. I can't understand the concept? I understand the concept quite lucidly, I just think it's a bunch of idiocy. I also think you are intellectually dishonest and rife with hubris if you seriously think that you can believe these things, have this faith, without, at any level, any influence on your decisions. Is it irrational to believe that? Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes, it is irrational to believe that.

Since you persist to state that I don't understand, or can't understand, let me spell it out for you perfectly well. I understand your beliefs. I have read the same authors you have read. I have known pagans and neopagans and wiccans in the past. I even own some of the memorabilia because it gives my den an occult look. Your knowledge is not special. It is not unique. comprehension of it is not limited to you, or to other enlightened minds. Presented with precisely the same information that you have access to, I understand your beliefs and I think they are utterly stupid and completely useless. Providing me more information on your beliefs just gives me more and more confirmation of this. You have not once, in any factor, shown that anybody can have any measurable, real benefit from this suspension of reality you ascribe to that is beyond some psychosomatic or placebo effect.

I also refuse to believe that you are somehow above and beyond any other member of we, the all seeing and ever loving crap of this world, in that you somehow don't apply your fundamental belief system to decisions made your daily life. Of course you do, and denying that is a cognitive issue that you really should be working on.

Again I say that my stance is not irrefutable. Unlike you, I can be proven wrong. So, do it.

 

[scalyblue]

You miss the point-
The idea is that the FSMcapacitor gremlins have as much evidence supporting it as your God.spirits Or any God. spirits
...
Christianspagans who laugh at it only laugh at themselves. The rest of us just laugh.

 

[Niocan]

Until Blue learns what psychological projection is and why I mention the term here and back on page 2, this 'discussion' isn't the least bit constructive..

Let me explain: If I may define Physics as the study of matter/energy, and Metaphysics as the study of thought [Getting rid of the poor 'natural / supernatural' divide]; Though both systems study the two sides of one coin, within each is the ability to explain away the other in terms of what one seeks.
If you wish to improve your knowledge of matter/energy, it doesn't help [as much] to learn archetypal psychology.
If you wish to improve your knowledge of thought, then it doesn't help [as much] to learn solid state physics.

Extremism of either side will lead to pitfalls of the other, but that much more clarity has been gained for the one side that's picked. With this being said, one can also choose to understand one by examining the other and maintaining the relationships that reside in both systems. It's a balancing game, driven by rational thought, to map out what we know and what we can know.

Physics seeks to explain the world we experience, Metaphysics seeks to understand why we experience it; Thought of thought, is intelligence^2.

Getting back to the thread topic, both systems of understanding have their loose ends. There will always be people who would swear upon one system over the other, but this isn't a very good way to understand the core systems. I happen to agree, that most 'new age' sub-categories of metaphysics are rather lame ways to express a connection between both systems of understanding and how either works; Focusing on one loose end is a strawman of itself, to the system of understanding being examined.

Why should we care about understanding the world around us [Physics]? Because it helps shed light on the apparent order and how to interact with it.
Why should we care about understanding the world within us [Metaphysics]? Because it helps shed light on the apparent order, and how to live it.

I say apparent order, because there are natural laws to everything, waiting to be understood by the student / adept.

To address the issue of demanding evidence for metaphysical interactions: Stop projecting the other system away and do it yourself.

One last note: Instead of capacitor gremlins, I think capacitor phoenixs would best describe the functions of the charge / discharge cycle with the rebirth / death cycle; But what do I know