There are no perfect people. Wisdom should still be gleaned from wherever it shows itself. The desire people have to place other people on pedestals has never made a bit of sense to me.
Imagine a world with perfect people, for instance, "Oh Dawkins? He's perfect! A man of no faults I say! I mean, yes this is all we ever can say about him, but hey, it's perfection we are talking about! He's on the top 1000 perfect people list, and really doesn't stand out a bit! What a dream!"
Perfecting is a process which produces results of a particular/characteristic kind..
& as one brings-in more & more & more dimensions-of-perfecting, that must continue refining the dimensional-depth of the results that the process is producing..
I don't accept your mundane-is-the-limit-of-reality axiom.
Remove the origin of defect, & defect must fall-away.
Unconscious-ignorance is the origin of SurfaceMind defectiveness.
Continuum/Soul-ignorance is the origin of being born into a LifeMind ( that we make "unconscious", to protect SurfaceMind, but which can be developed into its-own-Awareness, with work: that is Zen mastery ), & removing continuum-ignorance this is the means of removing LifeMind's defects, from then on.
The atheism thing was always a veneer for racism, tbh. The whole New Atheism movement was a way to sell The War on Terror to progressive liberals. Instead of talking about Gog and Magog or whatever, it was about how "Islam is the Mother-Load of bad ideas", and how the backward orientals need to be taught western values.
people could try actually watching things instead of being fake outraged by them, ricky explains comedy for people like this in the opening 3m of that special.
he didn't punch down with his jokes, literally explained the joke multiple times about how he's making fun of the people who have a problem with trans people
honestly that's the most annoying part of Ricky's character...which is what (most) comedians are doing...they're doing bits/playing characters always, explaining the jokes/doing audiance reaction callouts gets old fast
If you watch it you may see its not like that article makes it out to be.
His joke about Caitlyn Jenner that people were upset about wasn't anti-trans, it was about how stupid stereotypes are.
Basically the joke is after Bruce became Caitlyn and had that car crash, Ricky says "pbbt women drivers!".
Showing that as a society we woukd attach a stereotype to her gender instantly. Regardless of driving experience.
I mean, monotheism wasn't really a thing (as far as well can tell) prior to 4302 years after humans first began to form civilizations.
For more than 4000 years, we started forming governments, systems of currency, art and culture, all believing that there was no way just 1 being could be to blame for all observable phenomena.
I feel like It could only be the rise of empires and Kings handed down from the heavens that lead to us to being so susceptible to monotheistic beliefs.
In polytheism there is usually a god that is the creator, a watchmaker. A Hindu might see Catholicism as being similar to Hinduism in that there a multiple deities with supernatural character, the monotheism/polytheism is a distinction of rather limited use tbf
I'm not familiar enough with Hinduism to comment too strongly, but it's my understanding that while Brahma is the god of creation, he didn't create Vishnu and Shiva, who are separate beings and forces entirely and not aspects of each other the way the Catholic trinity is.
There very often isn't a single creator god in polytheism. There might be someone who created humans, but that figure(s) isn't necessarily the creator of all reality. You can look at Norse and Greek mythology for examples.
Completely incorrect. Empiricism does not require faith. And empiricism has no immutable dogma or doctrine.
While empiricism can provide the guidance that religion offers, it is not a religion.
ALL systems-of-knowing have axioms they're dependent on.
As has been discussed in the philosophy-of-science stuff, insisting that physical-experiment is THE criterion-for-validity itself presumes that subjective-reality isn't reality, since physical-experiment is only on the objective..
The stuff where one can prove indirectly that the immaterial-alterer-of-matter's-behavior of entanglement, or probabilitywave, and that has to be:
not-real, since neither entanglement nor probabilitywave themself is physical, XOR
real, since the effects/consequences of their acting are consistently measurable, therefore the causes of those effects have to be real..
proves that axioms matter, even in empiricism.
Pick whichever axiom, of those 2, you want, & reject the "reality" or the other, & call that empiricism.
Axioms are inescapable.
Axioms, as many in philosophy have noted, are "articles accepted on faith".
There is no axiom central to empiricism, since empiricism relies on proof, whereas axioms are accepted as true without any. The purpose and fundamental core of empiricism is to be free from axiom, and to question and test everything.
Entangled particles and wave functions are physical phenomena, contrary to what you have claimed, because they a) exist in nature, b) possess energy and c) have measurable, predictable effects. This classification of (a seemingly arbitrarily-chosen pair of) quantum phenomena is not axiomatic because it does not rely on faith to proceed, it is a simple definition of terms, used to agree what is a physical phenomenon.
We do not need faith to measure quantum entanglement, we need an experimental setup.
We do not need faith to describe the wave function, we need Schrödinger's equation.
So I will call empiricism what it is: deriving objective truth through observation, deduction and consensus using the scientific method.
Empiricism is not concerned with subjective truth, because subjective truth, whilst important to lived experience, is unimportant in the purely pragmatic furthering of the progress of human understanding of the physical universe. Again, this is not axiomatic, just a definition of terms.
There have been how many labels for infinity, & it's the LABEL and not the labelled-iNFINITY which is the REALITY??
Shove false-framing.
OceanOfAllAwakeSouls/OriginOfSouls/Brahman/G-D/UnlimitablePrimordiallyPureAWARENESS/AllPermatingBlissfulClearLightAWARENESS/Dzogchen, etc, all are labels for it.
It is itself: it isn't the label.
Scientism's beloved false-framing, straw-man-arguments, gaslightings, pseudo-science "experiments" which are engineered to test something that isn't the true-needing-to-be-tested thing, etc, can all go eat rocks.
Differentiate between the infinity & the label-humans-put-"on"-the-infinity.
( I'm not defending any of the local-gods stuff, I'm ONLY defending the ONE-G-D paradigm, the omni-present omniscient blissful-clear-light G-D, however-approximately-known.
The Muslim term "Lord OF WORLDS" gets at the truth: boundless, infinite.
That they simultaneously insist that it is limited-to-animal-male contradicts their own claim of its beyond-form ( in the Torah ) & it's being truly-infinite, but .. they're human: they're allowed to make mistakes, same as you are. )
First, you'll need to cite your your source because I'm almost sure you're either not giving us the whole context, or you're only telling us what you understood from that interaction. Because my interpretation is incredibly different from yours.
Second, you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously when dismissing something for being a religion after admitting to defending some "one true god". Like, pick a side, dawg.
Dawkins expressed the same sentiment as: we are all basically atheists, some just go one god further.
Man, too bad Dawkins and a lot of his ilk turned out to be kinda shitty
There are no perfect people. Wisdom should still be gleaned from wherever it shows itself. The desire people have to place other people on pedestals has never made a bit of sense to me.
Imagine a world with perfect people, for instance, "Oh Dawkins? He's perfect! A man of no faults I say! I mean, yes this is all we ever can say about him, but hey, it's perfection we are talking about! He's on the top 1000 perfect people list, and really doesn't stand out a bit! What a dream!"
Until human-category-sentience, evolution only expresses generation-to-generation.
However, IN human-category-sentience, evolution can be made to happen within an individual life.
IF evolution, THEN perfection is fundamentally-more-possible than people are understanding.
That is what "yoga", meaning "to harness" is all about.
_ /\ _
What in the fucking slop ass nonsense are you going on about? You're stretching the limits of stupid and breathing a lot of hot air.
Then downvote everything you see that I've said, & improve your world for all.
_ /\ _
WTF are you even saying. There is no perfect person as we are not robots.
Perfecting is a process which produces results of a particular/characteristic kind..
& as one brings-in more & more & more dimensions-of-perfecting, that must continue refining the dimensional-depth of the results that the process is producing..
I don't accept your mundane-is-the-limit-of-reality axiom.
Remove the origin of defect, & defect must fall-away.
Unconscious-ignorance is the origin of SurfaceMind defectiveness.
Continuum/Soul-ignorance is the origin of being born into a LifeMind ( that we make "unconscious", to protect SurfaceMind, but which can be developed into its-own-Awareness, with work: that is Zen mastery ), & removing continuum-ignorance this is the means of removing LifeMind's defects, from then on.
_ /\ _
I had to stop listening to Dawkins, he is antitrans and anti Muslim now, and was praising Christianity if we had to choose a religion
So, like most people, he just has a soft spot for the religion he was exposed to most in childhood.
I stopped listening to him because he was super arrogant and condescending and self important, didn't know about the other stuff
Not denying Dawkins is plenty smart about some things but man, I miss Carl Sagan
But enough about Sam Harris
The atheism thing was always a veneer for racism, tbh. The whole New Atheism movement was a way to sell The War on Terror to progressive liberals. Instead of talking about Gog and Magog or whatever, it was about how "Islam is the Mother-Load of bad ideas", and how the backward orientals need to be taught western values.
*motherlode
Don't worry, so did Gervais
Fuck Ricky Gervais
Context: https://www.them.us/story/netflix-continues-its-transphobic-comedy-spree-with-ricky-gervaiss-supernature
people could try actually watching things instead of being fake outraged by them, ricky explains comedy for people like this in the opening 3m of that special.
Most of social media would be a relative desert if fake outrage could just cease to exist.
Sounds like the dream to me.
He has always been an obnoxious bully that punches down
A hateful man
he didn't punch down with his jokes, literally explained the joke multiple times about how he's making fun of the people who have a problem with trans people
honestly that's the most annoying part of Ricky's character...which is what (most) comedians are doing...they're doing bits/playing characters always, explaining the jokes/doing audiance reaction callouts gets old fast
He's always been a hateful bully, he's about as funny as trump.
I hope they both die soon.
Bullshit. Ricky is mocking trans people for years now. You're just too blind to see it.
Oh shit, this is news to me. Wtf Ricky?
If you watch it you may see its not like that article makes it out to be.
His joke about Caitlyn Jenner that people were upset about wasn't anti-trans, it was about how stupid stereotypes are.
Basically the joke is after Bruce became Caitlyn and had that car crash, Ricky says "pbbt women drivers!". Showing that as a society we woukd attach a stereotype to her gender instantly. Regardless of driving experience.
Eh, it's just idiot journalists not actually getting his jokes. Watch the special, it's brilliant.
That guy's a major weiner/stinker.
I came here to upvote this. Thank you for commenting
Now go do a sold out show about cancel culture.
Wouldn't be surprised if Hinduism has at least 3000 on its own.
They have the best understanding. The Supreme being is so omnipotent it manifests in many forms depending on the situation
I mean, monotheism wasn't really a thing (as far as well can tell) prior to 4302 years after humans first began to form civilizations.
For more than 4000 years, we started forming governments, systems of currency, art and culture, all believing that there was no way just 1 being could be to blame for all observable phenomena.
I feel like It could only be the rise of empires and Kings handed down from the heavens that lead to us to being so susceptible to monotheistic beliefs.
That's why I'm an omnist.
Thanks, in my heart I always knew Ricky Gervais was real
This is funnier to me reading it as Harry Du Bois' internal monologue instead of as Ricky Gervais.
Which one?
Successful check, you believe your own words.
Is this a real quote from him? That'd be too perfectly smug.
I haven't confirmed that it's the exact words, but it's at least very close to something he said in one of his comedy specials.
the invention of lying was interesting
Actually, I think religious people tend to believe that there is one god/creator. They simply disagree on what God dictates.
In monotheism, that is correct, but you have to add polytheism into consideration
In polytheism there is usually a god that is the creator, a watchmaker. A Hindu might see Catholicism as being similar to Hinduism in that there a multiple deities with supernatural character, the monotheism/polytheism is a distinction of rather limited use tbf
I'm not familiar enough with Hinduism to comment too strongly, but it's my understanding that while Brahma is the god of creation, he didn't create Vishnu and Shiva, who are separate beings and forces entirely and not aspects of each other the way the Catholic trinity is.
There very often isn't a single creator god in polytheism. There might be someone who created humans, but that figure(s) isn't necessarily the creator of all reality. You can look at Norse and Greek mythology for examples.
Buddhism is also a religion.
That's why I say "tend to believe"
It's of course very obvious that Buddhism is the most correct one of the big religions
Eh, I tend to find points that are broad enough to avoid actually saying anything or require ignoring exceptions not terribly useful.
Lol on correct religions.
So is empiricism: it is axiom-based, it is an assumption-river, it holds that contradictory-alternatives are bogus, which they are, etc.
_ /\ _
Completely incorrect. Empiricism does not require faith. And empiricism has no immutable dogma or doctrine. While empiricism can provide the guidance that religion offers, it is not a religion.
ALL systems-of-knowing have axioms they're dependent on.
As has been discussed in the philosophy-of-science stuff, insisting that physical-experiment is THE criterion-for-validity itself presumes that subjective-reality isn't reality, since physical-experiment is only on the objective..
The stuff where one can prove indirectly that the immaterial-alterer-of-matter's-behavior of entanglement, or probabilitywave, and that has to be:
proves that axioms matter, even in empiricism.
Pick whichever axiom, of those 2, you want, & reject the "reality" or the other, & call that empiricism.
Axioms are inescapable.
Axioms, as many in philosophy have noted, are "articles accepted on faith".
That was declared decades ago.
_ /\ _
There is no axiom central to empiricism, since empiricism relies on proof, whereas axioms are accepted as true without any. The purpose and fundamental core of empiricism is to be free from axiom, and to question and test everything.
Entangled particles and wave functions are physical phenomena, contrary to what you have claimed, because they a) exist in nature, b) possess energy and c) have measurable, predictable effects. This classification of (a seemingly arbitrarily-chosen pair of) quantum phenomena is not axiomatic because it does not rely on faith to proceed, it is a simple definition of terms, used to agree what is a physical phenomenon.
We do not need faith to measure quantum entanglement, we need an experimental setup.
We do not need faith to describe the wave function, we need Schrödinger's equation. So I will call empiricism what it is: deriving objective truth through observation, deduction and consensus using the scientific method.
Empiricism is not concerned with subjective truth, because subjective truth, whilst important to lived experience, is unimportant in the purely pragmatic furthering of the progress of human understanding of the physical universe. Again, this is not axiomatic, just a definition of terms.
I'm still going to try and avoid a brick thrown at me even if I'm just assuming it's real. I don't find questioning it useful.
downvoters gods are real,only theirs
I'm guessing the down voters are reacting to seeing a bigot in their feed.
Yeah, guessing OP is going to trot out Bill Maher next.
Ah, how-convenient the false-framing..
There have been how many labels for infinity, & it's the LABEL and not the labelled-iNFINITY which is the REALITY??
Shove false-framing.
OceanOfAllAwakeSouls/OriginOfSouls/Brahman/G-D/UnlimitablePrimordiallyPureAWARENESS/AllPermatingBlissfulClearLightAWARENESS/Dzogchen, etc, all are labels for it.
It is itself: it isn't the label.
Scientism's beloved false-framing, straw-man-arguments, gaslightings, pseudo-science "experiments" which are engineered to test something that isn't the true-needing-to-be-tested thing, etc, can all go eat rocks.
Differentiate between the infinity & the label-humans-put-"on"-the-infinity.
( I'm not defending any of the local-gods stuff, I'm ONLY defending the ONE-G-D paradigm, the omni-present omniscient blissful-clear-light G-D, however-approximately-known.
The Muslim term "Lord OF WORLDS" gets at the truth: boundless, infinite.
That they simultaneously insist that it is limited-to-animal-male contradicts their own claim of its beyond-form ( in the Torah ) & it's being truly-infinite, but .. they're human: they're allowed to make mistakes, same as you are. )
_ /\ _
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Fascinating stuff. Or at least I assume it would be, if it made any sense.
😂
Perhaps a couple decades ago, some research published, stated that they were identifying macro-scale evidence that universe is fractal.
New Scientist went to an astrophysicist with that..
who then told them that "the model doesn't support that evidence".
New Scientist's reaction was:
"That isn't science, that is religion."
Scientism.
Rejecting-of-contradictory-evidence, axiom+authority-based, protecting-self-consistency-of-view paradigm.
Nobody who chooses, unconsciously or consciously, to be standing within that paradigm, can falsify it.
It is a religion: New Scientis was right.
_ /\ _
First, you'll need to cite your your source because I'm almost sure you're either not giving us the whole context, or you're only telling us what you understood from that interaction. Because my interpretation is incredibly different from yours.
Second, you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously when dismissing something for being a religion after admitting to defending some "one true god". Like, pick a side, dawg.