God Talk

[FreePlay]

It was sound advise.

No it wasn't. It was absolute fucking nonsense. Some jerkoff told you to stop trusting science and that did it in for you? Really? So we should just all throw in the towel and say "Well, gee, we can't know anything for absolutely sure, so why bother using the best explanations we have?"

What utter rubbish! Oh, and I love how you used the appeal to authority by talking about how he was some brilliant rich self-made man. Like that validated a goddamn thing he said.

His advice was basically "don't think you know anything, because you COULD be wrong." Sorry, but fuck that. Until I have evidence that contradicts what science shows me, there is absolutely no logical reason to think it's any different.

It's one thing to be open-minded. It's another thing to be so open-minded that your brains fall out. And that's precisely what you're doing if you think THAT was good advice.

Frankly I don't care how much older you are than me. It doesn't change the fact that you're arguing from a postmodernist perspective, that somehow your truth is just as valid as mine. It ain't, buddy. Mine's based on reality. Yours is based on refusal to make a decision.

How come you never challenged my "Fish found in mountains" proposal.
How would you address it if you believe that the mountain wasn't inundated.?

How would you explain a fossilised fish that was found in a coal seam in a pit I worked in 2 miles underground that litter the Illawarra ranges?

The fact that you don't comprehend plate tectonics is not my fault.

Yes, some places that are now mountains were once underwater. And some places that are now underwater were once ABOVE water. You're acting as though a fish fossil on a mountain must mean the ENTIRE PLANET was underwater.

 

[Terra]

Once again, you completely missed the point & the message. You are some fucking genius.
The point about his social standing was that he was a very clever self taught communicator & it was endorsed by his success.
I made that point because you are always squarking about proof.

His message was that there is not much point in demanding to be right when all you got is maybe's.

If you want to blast people off the forum with your myopic & bombastic know-all assertions, you'll have a lot of success, but what you don't get, & never will, is that while your fucking stargazing, you might be standing on your answers. (Don't try & work that out, you'll get a headache)

I came here to discuss the pro's & cons, but that's not your style.
Here's a little tip Einstein, I suspected your brain was under water with your little "Thought travels at the speed of electricity" gem.

Tell your shit to someone who cares,,,about maybe's, & likes listening to wouldbe's

BTW, that avatar,,,, that has got to be you.

Now go tear strips off me, I'll never know because there are too many other forums without fools like you. This one is all yours.

 

[FreePlay]

Being a "very clever self taught communicator" doesn't validate a damn thing you say, and what he said certainly isn't proof of anything at all.

Theories are not "maybes".

And I assure you, everything you said after that only made sense in your head.

 

[Slasher]

Being a "very clever self taught communicator" doesn't validate a damn thing you say, and what he said certainly isn't proof of anything at all.

So if that guy had a major in philosophy, would that have made it completely true or valid in your mind?
Advice: an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.: I shall act on your advice.

Theories are not "maybes".

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Maybe: a possibility or uncertainty.

You're often forcing theories and regarding them as absolute fact when they are not. Certain theories are generally accepted by the public (Evolution), and I think that's where you're getting the notion to considering it as the absolute truth. You've said yourself, "Theories are constantly being refined" to reflect changes that are found; so if a startling inconsistency were to be found, then what's to stop a refine from being a complete wipe-out of the theory itself?

In theory, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE

"Theories are nothing more than verbal deals, & you got nothing until the exchange is finalised."
This is spot on.

He's not advising you to "we can't know anything for absolutely sure, so why bother using the best explanations we have?". Quit being so damn undiscerning

And I assure you, everything you said after that only made sense in your head.

I admit it was a bit cloudy, but I think that it's due to the fact that the guy was using Aussie slang...

 

[Ciaran]

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Maybe: a possibility or uncertainty.

You're often forcing theories and regarding them as absolute fact when they are not. Certain theories are generally accepted by the public (Evolution), and I think that's where you're getting the notion to considering it as the absolute truth. You've said yourself, "Theories are constantly being refined" to reflect changes that are found; so if a startling inconsistency were to be found, then what's to stop a refine from being a complete wipe-out of the theory itself?

In theory, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE

"Theories are nothing more than verbal deals, & you got nothing until the exchange is finalised."
This is spot on.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. - Definition of Scientific Theory

In this context a theory is not just an idea or thought. For something to be a theory in science it has to be very well understood and able to predict future events. Its not based on whats "generally accepted" and come from alot of research.

 

[Slasher]

What I believe Terra was getting at though was that we shouldn't blindly outright accept these theories as the absolute truth - keep an open mind is all. Afterall, this is the point of discussion rather than Freeplay's constant condescending remarks blasting any opinion unmatched of his own. Sure, they're substantiated by a considerable amount of facts, but considering that they are still theories(explanations which correlate and interpret the facts), there's plenty of room for miscalculation and misinterpretation. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, and it doesn't mean that they're right, although they may be on the right track.

 

[Ciaran]

What I believe Terra was getting at though was that we shouldn't blindly outright accept these theories as the absolute truth - keep an open mind is all. Afterall, this is the point of discussion rather than Freeplay's constant condescending remarks blasting any opinion unmatched of his own. Sure, they're substantiated by a considerable amount of facts, but considering that they are still theories(explanations which correlate and interpret the facts), there's plenty of room for miscalculation and misinterpretation. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, and it doesn't mean that they're right, although they may be on the right track.

I agree some what. But what terra was posting was completely off any theories or even any past theories we've had and he was telling us to be open minded and put his ideas on the same level as theories we have today with no evidence what so ever.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

I agree some what. But what terra was posting was completely off any theories or even any past theories we've had and he was telling us to be open minded and put his ideas on the same level as theories we have today with no evidence what so ever.

exactly. being open minded doesn't mean we should give everything equal probability. like, say if I had a theory that all matter was made up of tiny subatomic bits of chedder cheese, you could not disprove it, but that does not mean it should get the same consideration as the theory of relativity.

 

[FreePlay]

So if that guy had a major in philosophy, would that have made it completely true or valid in your mind?

No. Because it's still nonsense.

You've said yourself, "Theories are constantly being refined" to reflect changes that are found; so if a startling inconsistency were to be found, then what's to stop a refine from being a complete wipe-out of the theory itself?

Once that "startling inconsistency" is found and confirmed, I'll be forced to accept it. Until then, I stick with the prevailing theory, since it's the most-evidentially-supported explanation we have.

He's not advising you to "we can't know anything for absolutely sure, so why bother using the best explanations we have?". Quit being so damn undiscerning

But he is. His entire anecdote about the advice he received was an attempt to tell me that I should never assume I can know anything, so I should keep looking for other explanations even if I'm confident I'm right.

What I believe Terra was getting at though was that we shouldn't blindly outright accept these theories as the absolute truth - keep an open mind is all.

I have an open mind. It's just not so open my brains fall out. I'm not going to assume something exists just because there's no evidence against it. If there's no evidence for it, it makes no sense to assume it exists. Otherwise I may as well believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and bigfoot. After all, nobody has disproven them, either!

this is the point of discussion rather than Freeplay's constant condescending remarks blasting any opinion unmatched of his own.

If that opinion is based on a refusal to take a position on an issue because of the claim that we can't know anything for sure, or on claims that science has discussed theories that have never been proposed, or on false anomalies or contradictions, or a refusal to accept evidence, I see no reason to respect it. Anti-intellectual/anti-science positions have no merit and don't deserve equal judgment with rational and evidential positions.

Sure, they're substantiated by a considerable amount of facts, but considering that they are still theories(explanations which correlate and interpret the facts), there's plenty of room for miscalculation and misinterpretation. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, and it doesn't mean that they're right, although they may be on the right track.

If an explanation fits all our evidence and is the best explanation we have yet created for a set of phenomena, it could still be wrong, yes. But the chances of it actually being wrong diminish significantly as we collect more and more evidence to support it.

That's not to say it can't still be wrong in part. But if a theory doesn't explain everything, you don't discard it entirely. You adjust it so that it can continue to explain things as it did, as well as taking the new information into effect. That's the scientific method - refinement through adjustment and test-based confirmation.

This is what has happened with evolution, for example. Much of modern evolutionary theory bears only a passing resemblance to Darwin's ideas, simply because our ability to detect, measure, and interpret data has improved vastly since he spawned the field.

The entire argument here is about postmodernism, the thick-minded philosophy that all potential explanations for a phenomena are equally valid and that a person's opinion of the facts can influence how the facts should be interpreted. Essentially, a postmodernist "scientist" could claim that he disagrees with the theory of gravity, and should thus be able to fly at will.

Our opinions of facts or theories has no relevance to their reality. If a theory has gained acceptance with the wider scientific community, it's not because scientists have closed their minds to other explanations, but rather that the other explanations were explored and found to be lacking when compared to the prevailing theory. This is why Lamarckian evolution - the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring - is all but dead nowadays. It didn't stand up to the rigorous examination and testing of science.

This is also why Intelligent Design is nonsensical. Every time an ID proponent claims to have evidence of their "theory", and it gets shot down, they continue to use it as evidence. For example, Behe's tireless squawking about the "impossibility" of the evolution of bacterial flagellum, despite it having been quite nicely laid out by several different scientists.

The claims of Intelligent Design do not conform to the concept of a scientific claim, let alone a scientific theory. If your only claim is that an unknowable intelligence designed all of life, you haven't explained anything at all, since you think it unnecessary to explain why that intelligence should make life appear the way it does. ID just pushes the origin of life back onto the Designer, which almost universally becomes either God or aliens. In the case of God, you're moving outside of science, since science (by definition, not by self-imposed regulations) only deals with that which is a measurable part of the natural world. And in the case of aliens designing life, you'd then have to explain where the aliens came from.

ID is a god of the gaps philosophy with no standing in actual science, and it's disingenuous (bordering on insulting to actual scientists) to call it science.

 

[Vee]

But busta rhymes is the voice of this century and chris cornell.

With the incredibly disrespectful song, Arab Money?


Not over my dead body.

 

[BlackBurd]

With the incredibly disrespectful song, Arab Money?


Not over my dead body.

disrespectful like lil wayne makin a song called white girls.

disrespectful like lil wayne in a milli saying and quote.

Open the lamborgini hoping them crackers see me like look at dat weezy.

Is not cracker a racist term (or a very salty and delicious snack.)

And i dont think arab money is disrepectful. Arabs have money because unlike americans they save there money and have excellent business skills.

That sounds like a damn good stereotype to me.
I wish black people had that stereotype and white people rapping about having black guy money.

 

[Vee]

Oh - Busta makes a song that doesn't even disrespect the race but says they have alot of money but Lil Wayne makes songs whereas he insults females, whites etc etc and we all raise him. GG.

I wish you knew what you were talking about, before you actually clicked Post Reply.

Do any of Busta Rhymes lyrics change during the remix?

disrespectful like lil wayne makin a song called white girls.

disrespectful like lil wayne in a milli saying and quote.


Is not cracker a racist term (or a very salty and delicious snack.)

And i dont think arab money is disrepectful. Arabs have money because unlike americans they save there money and have excellent business skills.

That sounds like a damn good stereotype to me.
I wish black people had that stereotype and white people rapping about having black guy money.

WTF. Same applies for you.

And the winner is!

You obviously have not heard the remix.

Bravo!

For anyone who has had their head up their arse, yet thinks its neccesery to comment; go and listen to the Arab Money remix. Its guys rapping over a autotune'd version of lines of the Qu'ran.

That makes the LittleBigPlanet fiasco look like nothing.

 

[eighty4]

I wish you knew what you were talking about, before you actually clicked Post Reply.



WTF. Same applies for you.

And the winner is!

Bravo!

For anyone who has had their head up their arse, yet thinks its neccesery to comment; go and listen to the Arab Money remix. Its guys rapping over a autotune'd version of lines of the Qu'ran.

That makes the LittleBigPlanet fiasco look like nothing.

What's so disrespectful about it? He didn't saying "The Quran sucks ass so I'll make a rap song about it". Also, since you obviously haven't heard the official song - they do the same thing. So "for anyone who has their head up their arse, yet thinks it's NECESSARY to comment;" go listen to the original song.

 

[Chathurga]

Vee, get off your PC horse, please. Anyone that is offended by that song is frankly a moron, the idea that words (or a series of them) can be intrinsically holy (or even "special") and therefore should not be spoken is ridiculous.
Misogyny is worse than that, far worse (although I don't think rappers are been misogynistic but that is a story for another day).

 

[Vee]

What's so disrespectful about it? He didn't saying "The Quran sucks ass so I'll make a rap song about it". Also, since you obviously haven't heard the official song - they do the same thing. So "for anyone who has their head up their arse, yet thinks it's NECESSARY to comment;" go listen to the original song.

My friend, it isnt anything they said. Its just offensive to play music to the Qu'ran. Thats why Muslims dont do the whole choir thing that Christians do at church. Its also why that song was removed from LBP.

The original version of the song, does not contain that chorus. Its only the remix.


Out to anyone who thinks they "pwnz0red me". I'm not a fan of Lil' Wayne's whole derogatory way of speaking about woman. Thats why i'm a huge fan of Lupe Fiasco and Chamillionaire. Neither of those ever speak like that about woman.

I dont think there should be a voice for the generation. There isn't a single person that is flawless enough to represent this many people.

 

[Gutya]

My friend, it isnt anything they said. Its just offensive to play music to the Qu'ran. Thats why Muslims dont do the whole choir thing that Christians do at church. Its also why that song was removed from LBP.

That's way too backwards, we need to be getting rid of shit like that from our modern lives.

Fair enough if you or anyone else considers it "holy" but to condem other people for using certain words in a certain way is just ridiculous.

 

[Vee]

That's way too backwards, we need to be getting rid of shit like that from our modern lives.

Fair enough if you or anyone else considers it "holy" but to condem other people for using certain words in a certain way is just ridiculous.

Not really.

There are loads of things in the Qu'ran that need to be modernised. Like some Muslims believe that you shouldn't date. I think thats ridiculous, especially in our day and age. Though, there are certain things that i think should remain the same. Like drinking alcohol and taking drugs. Playing the Qu'ran to music is just something out of respect. You dont put what someone sees as holy, to music.

 

[eighty4]

Not really.

There are loads of things in the Qu'ran that need to be modernised. Like some Muslims believe that you shouldn't date. I think thats ridiculous, especially in our day and age. Though, there are certain things that i think should remain the same. Like drinking alcohol and taking drugs. Playing the Qu'ran to music is just something out of respect. You dont put what someone sees as holy, to music.

Why? I see nothing wrong with it. Prove me wrong.

 

[Colm]

You dont put what someone sees as holy, to music.

Some Christians sing hymns from their bible.
I don't see what is wrong with putting the Qu'ran to music. I just don't see what could be considered disrespectful about it.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

Some Christians sing hymns from their bible.
I don't see what is wrong with putting the Qu'ran to music. I just don't see what could be considered disrespectful about it.

exactly. unless the qu'ran specifically states that that is wrong, then I see no reason that should be any issue(but apparently the qu'ran DOES say that, if i understood the LBP controversy right)