Spiritual but not religious?

Chalky

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

Actually I didn't know this was a competition.

You do now!

Last word wins?  

Sporky

I already won - up there at the top of page 4.

TheBlueWolf

@Chalky ;

Obviously you see the point in baiting people to provoke responses similar to previous responses, but it's not really the point of having the kind of debate which, due to it's subject nature, is already prone to all kinds of silliness.

There's a difference between having a sensible debate and deliberately going out of your way to try  and get a rise out of someone y'know

TheBlueWolf

Chalky said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

My ruse was to bait the science diehards as I explained. Nothing more complex than that. Search back and you will see we have had similar exchanges in previous threads, as Drew pointed out. I knew you would provide the necessary responses to give examples to @Megii as to why he should make his own choice in what to believe.  If you had reacted in an unemotional and calm, objective manner, as a scientist, I would have failed, but you stayed true to form and bit. Thank you.

So you were trolling, you followed up with a series of logical fallacies, and you think you won?

I already won. See http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1265498/#Comment_1265498

Actually I didn't know this was a competition. Have you ever been in a pub with your mates, bantering about some topic, then purposely mentioned something that you know will set one of them off? Then that guy realises he's gone off on one about that same old shit he always does, and everybody laughs?  Do you call that trolling?

No, that shit is being a dick

fretmeister

Chalky said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

My ruse was to bait the science diehards as I explained. Nothing more complex than that. Search back and you will see we have had similar exchanges in previous threads, as Drew pointed out. I knew you would provide the necessary responses to give examples to @Megii as to why he should make his own choice in what to believe.  If you had reacted in an unemotional and calm, objective manner, as a scientist, I would have failed, but you stayed true to form and bit. Thank you.

So you were trolling, you followed up with a series of logical fallacies, and you think you won?

I already won. See http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1265498/#Comment_1265498

Actually I didn't know this was a competition. Have you ever been in a pub with your mates, bantering about some topic, then purposely mentioned something that you know will set one of them off? Then that guy realises he's gone off on one about that same old shit he always does, and everybody laughs?  Do you call that trolling?

It rather sounds like you are being over familiar. 

ourmaninthenorth

octatonic said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

I shall say a small prayer for all of you, and despite all the quasi intellectual dribbling going on here, there's not a damned thing any of you can do about it. 

Don't thank me...no seriously, don't. 

Thank you.
I shall do some thinking on your behalf then.

First class. 

I'll do some humility on yours. 

CabbageCat

Chalky said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

My ruse was to bait the science diehards as I explained. Nothing more complex than that. Search back and you will see we have had similar exchanges in previous threads, as Drew pointed out. I knew you would provide the necessary responses to give examples to @Megii as to why he should make his own choice in what to believe.  If you had reacted in an unemotional and calm, objective manner, as a scientist, I would have failed, but you stayed true to form and bit. Thank you.

So you were trolling, you followed up with a series of logical fallacies, and you think you won?

I already won. See http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1265498/#Comment_1265498

Actually I didn't know this was a competition. Have you ever been in a pub with your mates, bantering about some topic, then purposely mentioned something that you know will set one of them off? Then that guy realises he's gone off on one about that same old shit he always does, and everybody laughs?  Do you call that trolling?

I knew you were going to say that. Sucker.

octatonic

ourmaninthenorth said:

octatonic said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

I shall say a small prayer for all of you, and despite all the quasi intellectual dribbling going on here, there's not a damned thing any of you can do about it. 

Don't thank me...no seriously, don't. 

Thank you.
I shall do some thinking on your behalf then.

First class. 

I'll do some humility on yours. 

I call your humility and raise you some buggery out of wedlock.

viz

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

Ruse? I just spotted that you were posting something provably untrue. I don't get what you're trying to achieve here; science is not a belief system any more than golf is a cheese.

http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab217/Vizzage/Mobile Uploads/image_zpshkxpvsxy.jpeg

quarky

Megii said:

I was out this afternoon, and came back to find about 30 notifications re this thread. Am I a die-hard science nut? - I certainly do have great respect for much that the scientific approach has achieved, and an ongoing interest in new scientific discoveries, particularly at the cutting edge of physics. One point I would make is that, as I understand it, when something is accorded the status of a scientific theory, then there will already be a lot of supporting evidence gathered. A more untested viewpoint is called a hypothesis - think I'm right saying that. So when US creationists were wanting to put stickers on biology textbooks saying "evolution is only a theory" they were misunderstanding the meaning/use of the word.

But I do also think @Chalky has valid things to say, and if I read him right, I don't think he's trying to state a position of complete disrespect for science - just the idea that science will be ultimately able to describe and account for absolutely everything in the universe. And I do think it's fair to have a debate on that one really.

I hope this isn't me lamely attempting to pour oil on troubled waters, but positions can get a bit entrenched and polarised with these kind of discussions. As my initial post made clear, my own thinking on spirituality and what it may/may not mean to me is some way from being resolved.

Yep, I am a die-hard science nut compared to most, but philosophy has been asking scientific questions for thousands of years. There are philosophical arguments to say that science as we know and practice it, isn't and can't be valid as an absolute understanding of everything. To me, it Occam's Razor comes into play there, but it is an interesting idea, as it is to think about the formation of the scientific method and how it could have formed differently.

Sambostar

Sporky

quarky said:

philosophy has been asking scientific questions for thousands of years

Izzackly. The scientific method is just that written down.

Note phenomenon.
Come up with hypothesis that may explain it.
Test hypothesis.
Modify hypothesis.
Have other people do the same, and check you did it right.
If it survives an awful lot of testing, and makes novel predictions that turn out to be correct, it becomes accepted.
At the point where the evidence is overwhelming it becomes a scientific theory.

That's all it is, with a bit of paraphrasing. There's nothing to get upset about. Obviously it can only be applied to things that can be tested...

Megii

Grunfeld said:

@Megii
I'm not religious; I'm not New Age.  I do, however, recognise that feeling you describe of being connected to something beyond the mundane.  Personally, I suspect it's a brain-thing and I quite like the ideas which suggest that one's sense of self and its demarcation from non-self may become blurred in certain circumstances.  E.g oxygen starvation (the classical near-death experience scenario); or in a different way through types of contemplation/ meditation/ self-hypnosis; or through the use of psychedelics. 

I have not used psychedelics in decades but yes, those non-duel experiences where you're "at one" were very nice, very interesting. 

I have a little project to see if I can experience non-duality again.  I don't think it's anything super-profound (despite feeling it at the time).  I suspect some people are wired to be naturals at it and the rest of us have to practise.

Cheers for that @Grunfeld - I've never used psychedelics myself (just say no! - I was irreversibly influenced by Grange Hill at an early age) but yes I do think you've picked up on an aspect of what I was trying to talk about at the start of the thread. I think partly I was trying to get forum-ers to talk a bit about their "artistic" sides as musicians, because to me that is about communicating something, and reflecting life experience and everything around us, and yes, perhaps relating to it all in a closer (non-duality?) kind of way.

Or as @Drew_TNBD alludes to re @TheBlueWolf ;, maybe I'm just a bit of a hippy...  

Megii

quarky said:

Megii said:

I was out this afternoon, and came back to find about 30 notifications re this thread. Am I a die-hard science nut? - I certainly do have great respect for much that the scientific approach has achieved, and an ongoing interest in new scientific discoveries, particularly at the cutting edge of physics. One point I would make is that, as I understand it, when something is accorded the status of a scientific theory, then there will already be a lot of supporting evidence gathered. A more untested viewpoint is called a hypothesis - think I'm right saying that. So when US creationists were wanting to put stickers on biology textbooks saying "evolution is only a theory" they were misunderstanding the meaning/use of the word.

But I do also think @Chalky has valid things to say, and if I read him right, I don't think he's trying to state a position of complete disrespect for science - just the idea that science will be ultimately able to describe and account for absolutely everything in the universe. And I do think it's fair to have a debate on that one really.

I hope this isn't me lamely attempting to pour oil on troubled waters, but positions can get a bit entrenched and polarised with these kind of discussions. As my initial post made clear, my own thinking on spirituality and what it may/may not mean to me is some way from being resolved.

Yep, I am a die-hard science nut compared to most, but philosophy has been asking scientific questions for thousands of years. There are philosophical arguments to say that science as we know and practice it, isn't and can't be valid as an absolute understanding of everything. To me, it Occam's Razor comes into play there, but it is an interesting idea, as it is to think about the formation of the scientific method and how it could have formed differently.

Interesting, cheers @quarky

Sambostar

The point is, do you smash the thing in the head or stand around laughing and joking with your camera flashing whilst listening to the tour guide.  That is all there is to it.  Fuck the lizard people, where you you think folklore comes from?  Fear, reality, inability and the will to follow.  Common memory.  Call yourself spiritual and you like Danish Bacon.  FFS, give us a break