Jump to content

Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?


Jotari
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ah, crap, gotta exile myself to the Himilayas, was remembering wrong.

Yes, blah, I'm very disappointed in you. I've come to expect encyclopedic perfection. (Just kidding, in case not clear)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And you don't really do things in the name of science, but they're still scientific discoveries. That point makes no sense.

does "discovery" imply we understand something perfectly from the start? knowing the process of nuclear fission has very humanitarian benefits as well, it's actually the fault of the military that bombs were produced. this doesn't make the very knowledge of the process of producing bombs bad, this makes the people who choose to manufacture and use them bad.

with religion, this is very different. every time an atrocity is committed in the name of religion, it is partly that religion's fault. this is because one's actions are built upon the very foundation of that belief. indeed, one could choose not to act, but often times one would find that's usually acting outside the confines of religious rules.

When it comes to the start of society, and even now in rural areas, religion -- more specifically, organized religion, like churches -- does a net good by creating a community with common beliefs that people can turn to and expect something like altruistic intentions and being welcome, depending on the religion. It gives us something to explain the bewildering aspects of our lives and fight existential dread, and puts us at a leg above the cave man. Self-righteousness is powerful, and the church has historically been a champion of morality. Religion isn't popular by mistake. If we didn't have moral fabric we would all lie, steal, cheat, and kill each other, and we wouldn't have progressed as much as we have. Beyond that, religion holds back our potential in an age where we no longer need it to survive. If you could rid the world of one thing retroactively, religion should not be it. If you had to rid the world of one thing right now and going forward, religion is still not a good choice because the reason people still choose religion would still exist: weakness of spirit. Most people are not capable of facing existential dread and coming out the other side without relying in a mythical ally. They need something to steady themselves in their insecurity. Faith, or the need for it, is what should be eradicated.

so is religion responsible for being our moral fabric? many other animals tend to show a sort of sympathy for kin and sometimes fellow creatures--are you arguing that humans lacked that before religion? real question--i'm unsure of the extent you intended for that statement.

The people who worked weapons of various sorts were doing it by science, if not in the name of science. Likewise, any atrocities committed in the name of religion are committed in the name of a specific religion, and not religion as a whole. And there have been reforms over the years that have advanced various religions to what we have today, rather than what they were thousands of years ago, but once again, it's apples and oranges. Science is a tool, it's not a replacement for religion. Science simply exists. You can't really deny science. Scientific laws continue to exist whether you believe in them or not, but likewise, you shouldn't worship science, lest you think all scientists are angels, capable of doing no wrong.

I don't blame science as a whole for the atrocities that it has allowed, just like I don't blame all Christians or all Muslims for what the select few do, let alone religion as a whole.

And most of the scientist war criminals from WW2 got off scot-free, since they were recruited by the USA and USSR for their research. The atrocities weren't ended by any sort of effort from the scientific community, but only because their nations lost a war. That's not to mention any of the horrible experiments committed elsewhere, like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments.

I'd say that the anti-vaccers' damage is still evident. I know plenty of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids, and we're seeing a reappearance of diseases that were almost eradicated as a result.

true, but religion as a whole has that effect on people.

wrt "religious reformation," wouldn't you agree that reforms essentially mean ignoring parts of religious text and not much else? the members of the religion get better, the religion itself is static.

anti-vax is largely upon the disturbing scientific education standards in the united states and people not understanding science. that paper should have been able to come through and be ignored rather quickly even by a regular 7th grader if science were taught properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?? there's a difference between leaving questions alone and believing in it.

if you choose to believe that we live in the matrix, or in god, or in mermaids, that is where the scientific conundrum starts. you need to have reasons for holding a belief, right? if you assert a truth for reasons of "because i think it's this way," that is not good scientific practice.

Religious people do have reasons to believe in religion. Sure a lot of them are in it because they were indoctrinated as a newborn (something I'm personally against btw) but generally anyone who's serious about the religion will have looked at the world and come to the conclusion that religious belief makes sense. If you ask them why they believe in god they'll probably give you some sort of answer, no matter how much you might disagree with the logic they use. Generally the universe is here, it must have some from somewhere would be the go to explanation. It's no bigger a gap in logic than looking at the world and assuming what you see is what's there. Not sure what a Buddist would say though.

At the end of the day science is really about possibilities, that's why so many things are considered theories and not facts. We can be pretty goddamn sure of it but the truth of the matter is that science has been wrong innumerous times before and even the things we consider scientific laws don't work the same way when you go into the subatomic level or approach absolute zero. If a scientist refuses to believe in the possibility of thing then science won't progress very far either. Like when the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun was proposed, a significant portion of the Ancient Greek scientific community said it was impossible because the Earth would be buffeted by giant winds. That is a perfectly logical and rational argument given the data you have. It's still wrong of course. Because a key component in scientific observation is having the right information. Another example is that Spontaneous Generation. Something that seems immensely silly now a days but when it was first conceived it was done so deliberately to try and explain the creation of life without the agency of god. And it was a sound enough explanation. It was only when people challenged it because they didn't accept the scientifically proven truth that we understood the real process in which microorganisms and the other supposed examples of Spontaneous Generation work. in the modern day our approach to science is one of doubt, where you must try and disprove your own hypothesis by ironing out the contradictions and other possibilities. Or to use a famous quote for deduction "One you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." When it comes down to it, scientifically speaking, the possibility that the universe was created by magic from some super entity hasn't been disproven. The credence and proof to support such an idea is up to the own individual, some scientists do dismiss it, some don't. At least that's my subjective view on the matter. If you want to further understand how and why a scientist can believe in god then you're better off asking one.

Ah, crap, gotta exile myself to the Himilayas, was remembering wrong.

I am also appalled and disappointed in you for that one Blah. Henceforth I shall doubt and second guess everything you ever say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tangent, but I believe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a limitation of our current measurement abilities, and that in the future, we will have the ability to determine an electron's position and momentum simultaneously. It may not be logical, but my faith in the advancement of science leads me to believe this will be true someday.

I also believe people who say overpopulation is a problem is overstated, and that science will continue to advance our ability to exponentially increase our ability to produce food, and that the real reason people starve is corrupt governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so is religion responsible for being our moral fabric? many other animals tend to show a sort of sympathy for kin and sometimes fellow creatures--are you arguing that humans lacked that before religion? real question--i'm unsure of the extent you intended for that statement.

It isn't responsible for moral fabric so much as it is a conduit for it. Conviction precedes belief -- but belief strengthens conviction beyond a feeling. Especially when it comes to church, where morals are a social standard and people who don't subscribe are ostracized, and so on. I think religion is inevitable in a knowledge vacuum because it gives people a reason to believe their convictions are more than their own. They need to be accountable to something bigger. To have a purpose. To say that humans didn't have morals before religion would be wrong, but to call it a moral fabric -- a coherent, recognizeable system -- religion is the primary basis for such standard morality.

Humans would have naturally created religion (and did), but if they were somehow kept from doing so, it is likely we would have struggled to build large communities and cooperate in the wake of only being accountable to ourselves. Existential dread might have kept us from thriving as we did. It would have taken much longer to develop intellectual pursuits. Imagine resetting back to the dawn of society and one group has religion but the other does not. No real knowledge exists, so there is no collectivism, no outward accountability, except for religion. They compete for survival. Which do you think is more likely to survive? The one with religion will have more children, doubt themselves less, and remain loyal more often than someone who just sees morality as a feeling and has no answer to their insecurity.

Religion may be a sorry excuse for real answers, but it was necessary when we couldn't have them and that shouldn't be taken for granted.

Edited by Makaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tangent, but I believe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a limitation of our current measurement abilities, and that in the future, we will have the ability to determine an electron's position and momentum simultaneously. It may not be logical, but my faith in the advancement of science leads me to believe this will be true someday.

I also believe people who say overpopulation is a problem is overstated, and that science will continue to advance our ability to exponentially increase our ability to produce food, and that the real reason people starve is corrupt governments.

If we can get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle it would mean we could theoretically predict the outcome of any action with 100% certainty. Which would have some interesting things to say about the nature of free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... science simply isn't an ideology. There are ideologies that put science at the forefront, Fascism and Technocracy specifically, but they aren't doing anything in the name of science. This is an unfair comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle it would mean we could theoretically predict the outcome of any action with 100% certainty. Which would have some interesting things to say about the nature of free will.

Possibly, but since the momentum and position are technically already there, I don't see how actually knowing them would change anything about free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but since the momentum and position are technically already there, I don't see how actually knowing them would change anything about free will.

He's saying if there is no uncertainty then the future positions of all particles can be predicted absolutely. Including the future positions of your particles. Of your body. I.e. the chemical makeup of your body, where you will go, what you will do; your will becomes absolutely predictable with no wiggle room for "freedom". You are trapped within yourself, preset on a path that you cannot change.

Edited by Makaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's saying if there is no uncertainty then the future positions of all particles can be predicted absolutely. Including the future positions of your particles. Of your body. I.e. the chemical makeup of your body, where you will go, what you will do; your will becomes absolutely predictable with no wiggle room for "freedom". You are trapped within yourself, preset on a path that you cannot change.

This is already the case, we are just limited in that we cannot measure both properties simultaneously. Us not knowing doesn't affect whether everything is predetermined or not.

There is still a degree of chaos that will likely prevent us from perfectly predicting everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is already the case, we are just limited in that we cannot measure both properties simultaneously. Us not knowing doesn't affect whether everything is predetermined or not.

There is still a degree of chaos that will likely prevent us from perfectly predicting everything.

He was supposing that we had the ability to change the future, and that such knowledge would make it impossible; in other words, he is saying the uncertainty principle allows for free will.

As I understood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was supposing that we had the ability to change the future, and that such knowledge would make it impossible; in other words, he is saying the uncertainty principle allows for free will.As I understood it.

There's are so many confounding variables that would affect the system that long term predictions would be difficult, if not outright impossible.

And merely knowing whether we have free will or not does not affect whether we do have free will or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tangent, but I believe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a limitation of our current measurement abilities, and that in the future, we will have the ability to determine an electron's position and momentum simultaneously. It may not be logical, but my faith in the advancement of science leads me to believe this will be true someday.

If we can get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle it would mean we could theoretically predict the outcome of any action with 100% certainty.

this is one of the most important lessons physicists teach their students: the heisenberg uncertainty principle (huc) is likely not a limitation of knowledge, but rather an expression of the extent of our knowledge.

in preparation of this post i read introduction to quantum mechanics by david griffiths (probably the most well-known qm textbook in the united states) which talks about the philosophy of measurement a bit. i recommend reading this, this, this, and this. also, on a thing called "commutators," if two observables can be measured simultaneously, they will commute (ie, the commutator will yield a value of 0). position and momentum don't commute. they are inherently uncertain. and indeed, if you do some of quantum mechanics' measurements, you'll obtain a spread of either position or momentum precisely in tune with the uncertainty principle. with some fourier analysis, you can see this as well.

on position and momentum uncertainty, i will unashamedly copy the example used in my text book. suppose you're holding one end of a very long rope, and you generate a wave by shaking it up and down rhythmically. if asked, "precisely where is that wave," you would find it odd. the wave isn't precisely anywhere, it's spread maybe 50ft or so. but if asked, "what's the wavelength," you could give a definite answer (maybe 6ft). say you merely jerk the rope up then down. now, when asked, "where is the wave," you can give a more definite answer to that question, but not the question of wavelength. wavelength is related to momentum by the de broglie formula. and so, in quantum mechanics, there is an inherent uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle because it behaves like a wave.

after reading the links, i hope it is clearer why the realist position (specifically the position of local realism, which is that the particles knew their spins prior to measurement) has been invalidated. essentially, quantum mechanics appears to violate locality, which means information is traveling faster than light. these particles don't have a precise spin until measured. there is something to be said about this spooky "action at a distance," but hidden variables that would allow for certain measurements is not it. as far as we can tell, quantum mechanics is pretty much gonna be staying the way it is for quite a while.

Religious people do have reasons to believe in religion. Sure a lot of them are in it because they were indoctrinated as a newborn (something I'm personally against btw) but generally anyone who's serious about the religion will have looked at the world and come to the conclusion that religious belief makes sense. If you ask them why they believe in god they'll probably give you some sort of answer, no matter how much you might disagree with the logic they use. Generally the universe is here, it must have some from somewhere would be the go to explanation. It's no bigger a gap in logic than looking at the world and assuming what you see is what's there. Not sure what a Buddist would say though.

explain bolded. i'm not sure how you can assert seeing what's there and not seeing what's there can be equivalent.

At the end of the day science is really about possibilities, that's why so many things are considered theories and not facts. We can be pretty goddamn sure of it but the truth of the matter is that science has been wrong innumerous times before and even the things we consider scientific laws don't work the same way when you go into the subatomic level or approach absolute zero. If a scientist refuses to believe in the possibility of thing then science won't progress very far either. Like when the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun was proposed, a significant portion of the Ancient Greek scientific community said it was impossible because the Earth would be buffeted by giant winds. That is a perfectly logical and rational argument given the data you have. It's still wrong of course. Because a key component in scientific observation is having the right information. Another example is that Spontaneous Generation. Something that seems immensely silly now a days but when it was first conceived it was done so deliberately to try and explain the creation of life without the agency of god. And it was a sound enough explanation. It was only when people challenged it because they didn't accept the scientifically proven truth that we understood the real process in which microorganisms and the other supposed examples of Spontaneous Generation work. in the modern day our approach to science is one of doubt, where you must try and disprove your own hypothesis by ironing out the contradictions and other possibilities. Or to use a famous quote for deduction "One you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." When it comes down to it, scientifically speaking, the possibility that the universe was created by magic from some super entity hasn't been disproven. The credence and proof to support such an idea is up to the own individual, some scientists do dismiss it, some don't. At least that's my subjective view on the matter. If you want to further understand how and why a scientist can believe in god then you're better off asking one.

other bolded: that isn't true. evolution is a fact. gravity is a fact. these theories are facts.

scientific laws do work the same way at microscopic and macroscopic levels. and near absolute zero. i think the one spooky thing is the "center" of a black hole, where physics does break down (general relativity, anyway).

most scientists dismiss the idea, actually. and it hasn't been "disproven" because the hypothesis is not testable.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is one of the most important lessons physicists teach their students: the heisenberg uncertainty principle (huc) is likely not a limitation of knowledge, but rather an expression of the extent of our knowledge.

in preparation of this post i read introduction to quantum mechanics by david griffiths (probably the most well-known qm textbook in the united states) which talks about the philosophy of measurement a bit. i recommend reading this, this, this, and this. also, on a thing called "commutators," if two observables can be measured simultaneously, they will commute (ie, the commutator will yield a value of 0). position and momentum don't commute. they are inherently uncertain. and indeed, if you do some of quantum mechanics' measurements, you'll obtain a spread of either position or momentum precisely in tune with the uncertainty principle. with some fourier analysis, you can see this as well.

on position and momentum uncertainty, i will unashamedly copy the example used in my text book. suppose you're holding one end of a very long rope, and you generate a wave by shaking it up and down rhythmically. if asked, "precisely where is that wave," you would find it odd. the wave isn't precisely anywhere, it's spread maybe 50ft or so. but if asked, "what's the wavelength," you could give a definite answer (maybe 6ft). say you merely jerk the rope up then down. now, when asked, "where is the wave," you can give a more definite answer to that question, but not the question of wavelength. wavelength is related to momentum by the de broglie formula. and so, in quantum mechanics, there is an inherent uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle because it behaves like a wave.

after reading the links, i hope it is clearer why the realist position (specifically the position of local realism, which is that the particles knew their spins prior to measurement) has been invalidated. essentially, quantum mechanics appears to violate locality, which means information is traveling faster than light. these particles don't have a precise spin until measured. there is something to be said about this spooky "action at a distance," but hidden variables that would allow for certain measurements is not it. as far as we can tell, quantum mechanics is pretty much gonna be staying the way it is for quite a while.

I understand what you're saying, and as a Chemistry major in undergrad, I took several Chemistry and Physics classes that utilized the principle. I think it is a useful tool, but if a reflection of our current limited understanding of reality. I think that one day, we will be able to gain more, if not total accuracy. This more very well not happen anytime soon. We could be hundreds, if not thousands of years away from it, but I believe science will continue to advance to reflect the inner workings of reality. Just as quantum mechanics cast doubts on classical Newtonian physics, I think there will one day be another idea that might show that there are limits to quantum mechanics as we know them.

I don't mean I think quantum mechanics are wrong, any more than Newtonian physics are wrong, just that they are a tool to explain reality and will continue to be more fine tuned as time marches on. Contrary to what people's impressions may be, I am a scientist and love what I can do to better understand the nature of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but newton wasn't "wrong." einstein's theory of relativity mostly more like corrections to newton's theory of gravity rather than flipping it on its head. quantum mechanics and special relativity also serve more as "corrections," or expansions to classical mechanics than completely new physics.

and again, it is not a limitation of knowledge, it is the extent of our knowledge. indeterminacy is inherent in quantum mechanics.

momentum and position are both clearly defined on large scales. it's quantum indeterminacy that is inherent because that is how the particles behave. it is the wave example that i posted that illustrates that point.

to come at a better understanding of our world, it would behoove you to read those links, then. this is not the first time the philosophy of measurement has been discussed. indeed, we are actually quite lucky that in this case the answer actually does lie in experiment! the experiments have shown local realism to be largely invalidated.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but newton wasn't "wrong." einstein's theory of relativity mostly more like corrections to newton's theory of gravity rather than flipping it on its head. quantum mechanics and special relativity also serve more as "corrections," or expansions to classical mechanics than completely new physics.

and again, it is not a limitation of knowledge, it is the extent of our knowledge. indeterminacy is inherent in quantum mechanics.

momentum and position are both clearly defined on large scales. it's quantum indeterminacy that is inherent because that is how the particles behave. it is the wave example that i posted that illustrates that point.

to come at a better understanding of our world, it would behoove you to read those links, then. this is not the first time the philosophy of measurement has been discussed. indeed, we are actually quite lucky that in this case the answer actually does lie in experiment! the experiments have shown local realism to be largely invalidated.

Not those exact articles, but as I said, I studied this in undergrad, though granted, that was almost a decade ago now. I'm familiar with the principles and I agree they are the best way to explain reality we currently have. I just believe the best way to continue to advance is to question everything and continue to look for way that more precisely define things.

Just as quantum mechanics and relativity tweaked Newtonian physics, I think we'll continue to see further tweaking.

And I fully admit that I could be proven wrong, but I still think the limitations of the theory will continue to evolve. Until they do, I embrace the theory, just with the caveat that I think it will one day change a bit. I merely love exploring the ideas, letting them battle it out, until we have the best one.

Edited by Rezzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is one of the most important lessons physicists teach their students: the heisenberg uncertainty principle (huc) is likely not a limitation of knowledge, but rather an expression of the extent of our knowledge.

in preparation of this post i read introduction to quantum mechanics by david griffiths (probably the most well-known qm textbook in the united states) which talks about the philosophy of measurement a bit. i recommend reading this, this, this, and this. also, on a thing called "commutators," if two observables can be measured simultaneously, they will commute (ie, the commutator will yield a value of 0). position and momentum don't commute. they are inherently uncertain. and indeed, if you do some of quantum mechanics' measurements, you'll obtain a spread of either position or momentum precisely in tune with the uncertainty principle. with some fourier analysis, you can see this as well.

on position and momentum uncertainty, i will unashamedly copy the example used in my text book. suppose you're holding one end of a very long rope, and you generate a wave by shaking it up and down rhythmically. if asked, "precisely where is that wave," you would find it odd. the wave isn't precisely anywhere, it's spread maybe 50ft or so. but if asked, "what's the wavelength," you could give a definite answer (maybe 6ft). say you merely jerk the rope up then down. now, when asked, "where is the wave," you can give a more definite answer to that question, but not the question of wavelength. wavelength is related to momentum by the de broglie formula. and so, in quantum mechanics, there is an inherent uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle because it behaves like a wave.

after reading the links, i hope it is clearer why the realist position (specifically the position of local realism, which is that the particles knew their spins prior to measurement) has been invalidated. essentially, quantum mechanics appears to violate locality, which means information is traveling faster than light. these particles don't have a precise spin until measured. there is something to be said about this spooky "action at a distance," but hidden variables that would allow for certain measurements is not it. as far as we can tell, quantum mechanics is pretty much gonna be staying the way it is for quite a while.

explain bolded. i'm not sure how you can assert seeing what's there and not seeing what's there can be equivalent.

other bolded: that isn't true. evolution is a fact. gravity is a fact. these theories are facts.

scientific laws do work the same way at microscopic and macroscopic levels. and near absolute zero. i think the one spooky thing is the "center" of a black hole, where physics does break down (general relativity, anyway).

most scientists dismiss the idea, actually. and it hasn't been "disproven" because the hypothesis is not testable.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that you need to keep an open mind. And I think the way science is presented in its modern form fully supports that. What we don't know (probably) far outweighs what we do know of the universe so practically anything is a possibility.

Possibly, but since the momentum and position are technically already there, I don't see how actually knowing them would change anything about free will.

Well we don't know if we live in a deterministic universe or not. Knowing for sure one way or the other would certainly change our perception of our own agency. Though I'm of the personal opinion that even if the outcome of one's choices are predetermined the choice still exists as illogical as that might sound. Nevertheless if we could predict with 100% accuracy everything in a system, even on a very small scale, it would be absolutely fascinating.Though Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle isn't the only thing we'd need to get around. There's also those crazy exotic particles that pop in and out of existence that manage to simultaneously solve and destroy everything in field theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for both of you, a well known physic/math blog: http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/08/q-will-we-ever-overcome-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle/

Not those exact articles, but as I said, I studied this in undergrad, though granted, that was almost a decade ago now. I'm familiar with the principles and I agree they are the best way to explain reality we currently have. I just believe the best way to continue to advance is to question everything and continue to look for way that more precisely define things.

Just as quantum mechanics and relativity tweaked Newtonian physics, I think we'll continue to see further tweaking.

And I fully admit that I could be proven wrong, but I still think the limitations of the theory will continue to evolve. Until they do, I embrace the theory, just with the caveat that I think it will one day change a bit. I merely love exploring the ideas, letting them battle it out, until we have the best one.

i'm not sure how in-depth chem courses go into physics. folks at my school take p chem and that's intro level quantum mechanics, which hardly scratches the surface. i'm barely getting there and i have a full year under my belt.

and you're missing the point. i have said several times that it is not a limitation! it is the total amount of knowledge that we can know. we can never know the position and momentum of a particle because that's fundamentally not how wave mechanics works. unless these supposed "tweaks" include ridding quantum theory entirely, this is not an advancement that can logically happen.

the tweak that would make sense is spin indeterminacy. but so far local realism is all but invalidated. so far what we have found is that wavefunctions collapse instantaneously and two particles entangled seem to immediately know how to be oriented immediately after one or the other is measured. so who knows? this could be a crapshoot.

and ultimately i agree. but just as much as looking in the right places we need to avoid looking in the wrong places.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that you need to keep an open mind. And I think the way science is presented in its modern form fully supports that. What we don't know (probably) far outweighs what we do know of the universe so practically anything is a possibility.

whether you know it or not, this is a very arrogant thing to say. i can clearly tell you read nothing, so until you do i won't continue any further.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether you know it or not, this is a very arrogant thing to say. i can clearly tell you read nothing, so until you do i won't continue any further.

May I ask whether or not you are aware of how you come across in this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you only think that because i'm shitting on something you feel strongly about but can't argue for.

in jotari's case, what's being said is, "despite mathematical absolutes, 60+ years of experimental data, and supporting theoretical framework, you just need to expand your mind." i cannot fathom a weaker argument/response to the 30+ minute effortpost i made to inform him in the specific way he was wrong. i even concede/agree the main point and say that what he and rezzy were arguing is simply focused in the wrong spot (heisenberg uncertainty principle), but not wrong entirely ("action at a distance" principle and reasons for violation of locality).

talk about "not listening" (not in rezzy's case, but in jotari's)

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you only think that because i'm shitting on something you feel strongly about but can't argue for.

You just proved it.

The fact of the matter is that your attitude is extremely arrogant and closed-minded. If you are convinced you are so very right, well, I won't tell you how to live your life. However, I strongly suggest you tone down the know-it-all attitude. It's detrimental to discussion, and I asked what I did earlier in the thread to illustrate your motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just proved it.

The fact of the matter is that your attitude is extremely arrogant and closed-minded. If you are convinced you are so very right, well, I won't tell you how to live your life. However, I strongly suggest you tone down the know-it-all attitude. It's detrimental to discussion, and I asked what I did earlier in the thread to illustrate your motives.

obviously i think i'm correct; they're my beliefs. on the topic this post was started for, i wouldn't say i'm terribly confident in my stance, especially after blah's points.

on the subject of quantum mechanics, i am most definitely correct.

you, however, change whenever religion is brought up and someone shits on it. you become much more sensitive. it's one of the only times i've noticed you do it, the other being the "nice guys" topic. you don't argue your points at all but claim i'm being close-minded.

also, at some point a discussion is no longer a "discussion," but rather a teacher-student situation. jotari could learn something from the several physicists i've mentioned/linked to, but instead stays far within his own deep-seeded belief that the universe is really just an open book where absolutely anything can happen. that is patently false. the assertion that the uncertainty principle could be "fixed" is as incorrect as saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously i think i'm correct; they're my beliefs. on the topic this post was started for, i wouldn't say i'm terribly confident in my stance, especially after blah's points.

on the subject of quantum mechanics, i am most definitely correct.

you, however, change whenever religion is brought up and someone shits on it. you become much more sensitive. it's one of the only times i've noticed you do it, the other being the "nice guys" topic. you don't argue your points at all but claim i'm being close-minded.

also, at some point a discussion is no longer a "discussion," but rather a teacher-student situation. jotari could learn something from the several physicists i've mentioned/linked to, but instead stays far within his own deep-seeded belief that the universe is really just an open book where absolutely anything can happen. that is patently false. the assertion that the uncertainty principle could be "fixed" are as incorrect as saying the sun revolves around the earth.

That's because I think it's pointless to discuss things with you right now. Think long and hard what the implications of that means, because it's not a compliment - and yes, the problem is you, as a person.

EDIT: So, your options. . .you can either react the same way you did when Tangerine made her statements in the White House thread, or you can ask yourself what you can do to change for the better. I don't think you're a lost cause, but I think that you are headed down the wrong path, in terms of how you view things. Your move.

Edited by eggclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone views oneself as open-minded and is so quick to judge others. just look at the tone of that post, eclipse. with ease you ooze condescension and holier-than-thou diction without ever actually saying anything. confidence in one's knowledge of their own field is not close-mindedness, and i freely admitted that my stance on the topic is shakier than how i started. literally what more could you want?

maybe ask yourself a question or two: what are you actually trying to argue? you beat around the bush far too much.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...