Michael Shermer/Ben Stiller (Sam Harris) vs. Chopra/random bird

roosh · 17-08-2010 12:32AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mangaroosh, that sounds to me like the same kind of....stuff that Chopra is talking about. Science works with what's verifiable. It can't verify everything but that's not the same as saying it can't verify anything. Having said that, science is making great inroads into understanding our minds at a neurological level but I don't think that those are the kind of answers you're looking for, since they say nothing about any kind of higher being or generally what you think the nature of consciousness is. Science is pretty much finding that consciousness is a product of the electrical and chemical impulses in our brains but I doubt that's very satisfying to you

No need for aplogies, a simple outlining of the scientific experiment that verifies your existence, without relying on first-person experience will suffice.

Or perhaps a statement of skepticism about your own existence.

Also, the Quantum Mechanical explanation of consciousness seeing as how those electrical and chemical impulses in the brain, as well as the brain itself, are actually just visual representations in the mind, of the Quantum (and beyond) level.

And in case this is assumed to be the wishy-wahsy, pseudo-science that Chopra attempted to use, be aware that it isn't. These are the logical consequences of scientific discovery, and issues that require addressing, if such statemetns as the above, are to be considered accurate.

EDIT: or satisfying!

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 12:35AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

No need for aplogies, a simple outlining of the scientific experiment that verifies your existence, without relying on first-person experience will suffice.

Or perhaps a statement of skepticism about your own existence.

Also, the Quantum Mechanical explanation of consciousness seeing as how those electrical and chemical impulses in the brain, as well as the brain itself, are actually just visual representations in the mind, of the Quantum (and beyond) level.

And in case this is assumed to be the wishy-wahsy, pseudo-science that Chopra attempted to use, be aware that it isn't. These are the logical consequences of scientific discovery, and issues that require addressing, if such statemetns as the above are to be considered accurate.

Yes mangaroosh, you're talking yet again about the old brain in a jar problem. Yes we could all be brains in jars and there is no way we would be able to tell the difference. That is a nice philosophical problem that doesn't have quite the devastating implications for science that you seem to think it does. What exactly do you think are the implications of this in terms of specific scientific discoveries and theories? Do you think that the theory of gravity carries as much weight as the theory that there are pixies at the bottom of my garden on the basis that we could be brains in jars?

roosh · 17-08-2010 12:36AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're back to what I said last week:

Sam Harris was working with the accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions. If Chopra wants to ignore this definition of god and make up his own one then they might as well have come together to discuss the existence of farflugnagles. In fact that's pretty much what they did, since Chopra's definition of god was closer to that of a farflugnagle than any definition of god I have ever heard. Closer in that the term farflugnagle is meaningless nonsense, just like Chopra's definition of god

apologies, I'm not overly aware of this "accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions". This could clarify a lot of things.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 12:42AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

apologies, I'm not overly aware of this "accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions". This could clarify a lot of things.

Yes this is also a major problem, that even within the major religions there is wide variation in what the term means. Your argument here does not amount to Sam Harris straw manning Chopra, it amounts to the word god meaning whatever the hell people want it to mean, basically that the word is meaningless. Following your line of discussion to its logical conclusion, and as I said last week, it would have been physically impossible for Sam Harris to partake in that discussion without straw manning millions of people. Chopra was also straw manning millions of people. Everyone involved in the debate and everyone on the planet is constantly straw manning millions of people by their definition of god because the word can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Chopra came to discuss one definition of god so Harris straw manned him. Harris came to discuss another definition of god and Chopra straw manned him. Everyone straw manned everyone because it's impossible to do anything else

I've just defined the bowl of cornflakes I had for my breakfast this morning as god. How dare Chopra straw man me :mad:

roosh · 17-08-2010 12:49AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes mangaroosh, you're talking yet again about the old brain in a jar problem. Yes we could all be brains in jars and there is no way we would be able to tell the difference. That is a nice philosophical problem that doesn't have quite the devastating implications for science that you seem to think it does. What exactly do you think are the implications of this in terms of specific scientific discoveries and theories? Do you think that the theory of gravity carries as much weight as the theory that there are pixies at the bottom of my garden on the basis that we could be brains in jars?

No Sam, I'm not talking about the old brain in a jar problem, but interesting that you should assume that I am. It seems to be a common trend, to assume a windmill and then tilt at it.

I am of course talking about visual perception. The fact that what we perceive as the outside world, is simply our perception of the sub-atomic world. Equally, what we perceive as the sub-atomic world is quite probably, just a perception of something else. Indeed, anything which we use the sense of sight to perceive, is just a representation of light by the brain.

Of course, all of the concepts used in the above explanation, are based on our visual perception of the world.

Now, of course, I don't assume that this has a devestating impact on science, and indeed any perception that I may be anti-science, is likely based solely on the challenge of the unacknowledged limitations of science (other than lip-service of course).

The impact that it does have, however, is on the ability of the contemporary scientific approach to make reasonable statements about reality. Not our relative experience of reality, but reality itself, the nature of things as they actually exist as opposed to how we perceive them.

This would only be considered devastating, if someone was very attached to a deluded notion of science.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 12:55AM

What I'm reading here is:

mangaroosh wrote: »

No Sam, I'm not talking about the old brain in a jar problem, but interesting that you should assume that I am. It seems to be a common trend, to assume a windmill and then tilt at it.

I am of course talking about visual perception. The fact that what we perceive as the outside world, is simply our perception of the sub-atomic world. Equally, what we perceive as the sub-atomic world is quite probably, just a perception of something else. Indeed, anything which we use the sense of sight to perceive, is just a representation of light by the brain.

Of course, all of the concepts used in the above explanation, are based on our visual perception of the world.

"I'm not talking about the brain in a jar problem...except I am".

I don't see the difference between the brain and the jar problem and what you're talking about

and...

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now, of course, I don't assume that this has a devestating impact on science, and indeed any perception that I may be anti-science, is likely based solely on the challenge of the unacknowledged limitations of science (other than lip-service of course).

The impact that it does have, however, is on the ability of the contemporary scientific approach to make reasonable statements about reality. Not our relative experience of reality, but reality itself, the nature of things as they actually exist as opposed to how we perceive them.

This would only be considered devastating, if someone was very attached to a deluded notion of science.

"I'm not anti-science...except I am".

Yes science has its limitations that I have never actually seen anyone fail to acknowledge but I have seen many people claim that others fail to acknowledge. I have never come across anyone who has this "deluded notion of science" that you're talking about. And I bet you a euro that you have a theory about what can go beyond science and see reality itself and I bet that it's internal totally unverifiable personal experience.

edit: you have argued over and over again on this forum about the limitations of science but I have yet to see you argue how personal experience is any better, or even anywhere near as good

roosh · 17-08-2010 01:00AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes this is also a major problem, that even within the major religions there is wide variation in what the term means.

apologies, I could've sworn you said

Sam Harris was working with the accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your argument here does not amount to Sam Harris straw manning Chopra, it amounts to the word god meaning whatever the hell people want it to mean, basically that the word is meaningless.

Actually it does. Chopra outlines his concept of God, which Harris actually acknowledges, but then decides to argue against the non-represented, believers of an "invisible person", in order to debate against Chopra.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Following your line of discussion to its logical conclusion, and as I said last week, it would have been physically impossible for Sam Harris to partake in that discussion without straw manning millions of people. Chopra was also straw manning millions of people. Everyone involved in the debate and everyone on the planet is constantly straw manning millions of people by their definition of god because the word can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Chopra came to discuss one definition of god so Harris straw manned him. Harris came to discuss another definition of god and Chopra straw manned him. Everyone straw manned everyone because it's impossible to do anything else

Except for the fact, that the debate was between Scherner & Harris, and Chopra & that woman, not between any of the panelists and the non-represented people at home - which Harris presumed to argue against.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've just defined the bowl of cornflakes I had for my breakfast this morning as god. How dare Chopra straw man me :mad:

If he egages you in an argument, I would be willing to bet he won't.

You are right in one sense, in the sense that the concept of God is now [almost] meaningless, or at least such a closed concept, that it is almost a hinderance to what it is supposed to point to. That of course doesn't matter one iota, however, as the pre-conceptions of what God means, has no bearing on what God actually means.

In the Hindu religion, God is the true nature of the self (and all things).

Oh, and did I mention Chopra was wearing a Hindu (or Buddhist Mala) and is from India, which is the home of Hinduism?

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 01:11AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

apologies, I could've sworn you said

Yes there are certain major things that are widely accepted in the religions that Sam Harris was talking about. They are not accepted by every follower of those religions but then there is nothing that could be said to be believed by every believer in god.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Actually it does. Chopra outlines his concept of God, which Harris actually acknowledges, but then decides to argue against the non-represented, believers of an "invisible person", in order to debate against Chopra.

Except for the fact, that the debate was between Scherner & Harris, and Chopra & that woman, not between any of the panelists and the non-represented people at home - which Harris presumed to argue against.

If he egages you in an argument, I would be willing to bet he won't.

You are right in one sense, in the sense that the concept of God is now [almost] meaningless, or at least such a closed concept, that it is almost a hinderance to what it is supposed to point to.

In the Hindu religion, God is the true nature of the self (and all things).

Oh, and did I mention Chopra was wearing a Hindu (or Buddhist Mala) and is from India, which is the home of Hinduism?

Chopra came to the debate with his own made up definition of god. Harris came to the debate with a definition of god that is accepted by millions. But even if that were not the case, could it not be said that Chopra was straw manning Harris exactly as much as Harris was straw manning Chopra?

mangaroosh wrote: »

That of course doesn't matter one iota, however, as the pre-conceptions of what God means, has no bearing on what God actually means.

Actually it does. Whatever creator/higher being/prime mover/whatever there actually is really shouldn't be described with the word god since the word has a million different meanings. There is no "what god actually means" there are just the different meanings people ascribe to it. There might be a "what god actually is" but until this being has been described exactly there is no way of knowing which meaning of the word god is closer to the truth than any other

roosh · 17-08-2010 01:19AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I'm reading here is:

"I'm not talking about the brain in a jar problem...except I am".

I don't see the difference between the brain and the jar problem and what you're talking about

and...

Do you know why you don't see the difference, it is because our existence isn't that far removed from the hypothetical situation. We are effectively brains in a vat, the vat being our body and the simulated world being our visual representation of "the external world".

But, still I'm not talking about brains in a vat, I am talking about human existence, and visual perception!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I'm reading here is:

"I'm not anti-science...except I am".

It's no wonder, that there is such an incorrect understanding as to what the conept of God acutally means, because when things are actually spelled out, in unequivocal terms, they are still contrived to be misunderstood.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes science has its limitations that I have never actually seen anyone fail to acknowledge but I have seen many people claim that others fail to acknowledge.

This is the lip-service that was referred to.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have never come across anyone who has this "deluded notion of science" that you're talking about.

Then no one will be "devestaed" by the "revelation" that has gone before!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I bet you a euro that you have a theory about what can go beyond science and see reality itself and I bet that it's internal totally unverifiable personal experience.

How do I collect my euro?

You can verify any spiritual claim that is made, that is, you personally can do it, in the same manner that you might verify your own existence. Although you may need to overcome your fear of not being able to discern what is real from what isn't, as that could be somewhat of a stumbling block.

That, of course, is not to say that every claim which is made in the name of spirituality, is actually true. It would be helpful to understand what it is that you are trying to investigate, this can be done by researching the wealth of literature on spirituality, and preferably from a reputable source.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: you have argued over and over again on this forum about the limitations of science but I have yet to see you argue how personal experience is any better, or even anywhere near as good

That's because I'm not deluded as to the fact, that science is a pursuit carried out by individuals, who rely on their own personal experience, with the aid of instruments (to enhance that experience). That those who carry out peer reviews, rely on their personal experience to verify results.

The nature of existence is personal experience.
THIS CANNOT BE CIRCUMNAVIGATED.

Personal experience is the only manner in which we can know anything and science relies on this, even if there is an attempt (using multiple personal experiences) to reduce bias.

The question that remains is, what is the nature of the "person" that has the experience?

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 01:29AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

Do you know why you don't see the difference, it is because our existence isn't that far removed from the hypothetical situation. We are effectively brains in a vat, the vat being our body and the simulated world being our visual representation of "the external world".

But, still I'm not talking about brains in a vat, I am talking about human existence, and visual perception!

Nope, still not seeing the difference

mangaroosh wrote: »

It's no wonder, that there is such an incorrect understanding as to what the conept of God acutally means, because when things are actually spelled out, in unequivocal terms, they are still contrived to be misunderstood.

No mangaroosh, that's your concept of god. Your concept of god is not "what god actually means", it's one more concept to add to the millions upon millions of other concepts

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is the lip-service that was referred to.

Then no one will be "devestaed" by the "revelation" that has gone before!

If that's what you want to think.

mangaroosh wrote: »

How do I collect my euro?

You can verify any spiritual claim that is made, that is, you personally can do it, in the same manner that you might verify your own existence. Although you may need to overcome your fear of not being able to discern what is real from what isn't, as that could be somewhat of a stumbling block.

That, of course, is not to say that every claim which is made in the name of spirituality, is actually true. It would be helpful to understand what it is that you are trying to investigate, this can be done by researching the wealth of literature on spirituality, and preferably from a reputable source.

About the bit in bold, presumably there are millions of people who have made claims of spirituality who are just as sure as you or anyone else but whose claims are false. How does one tell the difference between a true experience and a false one without the aid of external verification? Would I be right in assuming that it's at the very least extremely difficult, since I have come across so many people in my life who talk about their personal experiences of whatever and who are all absolutely convinced of the veracity of said experiences despite the fact that they are all contradictory meaning that at most one of the experiences is actually true?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Personal experience is the only manner in which we can know anything and science relies on this, even if there is an attempt (using multiple personal experiences) to reduce bias.

Exactly mangaroosh. Science attempts to reduce bias. Your method allows for the maximum amount of bias which is why there are millions of concepts of god and one atomic theory. And, paradoxically, you are claiming that the method that attempts to reduce bias as much as possible cannot truly see reality but the method that makes no attempt whatsoever to reduce bias can see reality. Seems to me that such a method can see whatever reality the person wants to see, a theory which is supported by the millions of contradictory concepts of god.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The question that remains is, what is the nature of the "person" that has the experience?

A nice philosophical problem that is not really addressed by science.

roosh · 17-08-2010 01:33AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes there are certain major things that are widely accepted in the religions that Sam Harris was talking about. They are not accepted by every follower of those religions but then there is nothing that could be said to be believed by every believer in god.

OK, so Sam Harris wasn't working with

the accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions

he was working with certain major things, that are widely accepted in the religions.

What were these things?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Chopra came to the debate with his own made up definition of god. Harris came to the debate with a definition of god that is accepted by millions. But even if that were not the case, could it not be said that Chopra was straw manning Harris exactly as much as Harris was straw manning Chopra?

This is the defintion Chopra was working from (Note: not necessarily his own made up one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-JvozEkC4

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually it does. Whatever creator/higher being/prime mover/whatever there actually is really shouldn't be described with the word god since the word has a million different meanings. There is no "what god actually means" there are just the different meanings people ascribe to it. There might be a "what god actually is" but until this being has been described exactly there is no way of knowing which meaning of the word god is closer to the truth than any other

You are completely correct in the above. The word God cannot even begin to sum up what is meant by the word. Reality is ineffable, that is, it cannot be expressed in words. It can only be described in such a manner, as to act as a guide to experiencing it.

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 01:38AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

OK, so Sam Harris wasn't working with he was working with certain major things, that are widely accepted in the religions.

What were these things?

The things he mentioned in the video

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is the defintion Chopra was working from (Note: not necessarily his own made up one)

Right, so they were both working with different definitions of the word, neither of which can be shown to be any more "true" than the other. So they were both straw manning each other.

roosh · 17-08-2010 01:53AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nope, still not seeing the difference

Indeed, that is because there is not really any difference, that is the concept of us being brains in a vat, is not as far removed from our experience, as might be thought.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No mangaroosh, that's your concept of god. Your concept of god is not "what god actually means", it's one more concept to add to the millions upon millions of other concepts

The response, that this is in reply to, was about the statement of me not being anti-science, and the subsequent contrived misunderstanding.

However, to put the concept of God in unequivocal terms (conceptually at least), and that isn't just my concept.

Our true nature, that is, what you and I actually are, and what everything actually is, is what is referred to as God.

or to borrow a more succinct explanation from the Upanishads, of the worlds third largest religion (Hinduism):
Atman is Brahman

The goal of Vedanta is to realize that the soul (Atman) is actually nothing but Brahman

Hindu - wiki

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If that's what you want to think.

I'll presume you mean the lip-service comment, and not the devestation one.

We can discuss the limitations of scicence if you wish, as you allude to it in the final comment below.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

About the bit in bold, presumably there are millions of people who have made claims of spirituality who are just as sure as you or anyone else but whose claims are false. How does one tell the difference between a true experience and a false one without the aid of external verification? Would I be right in assuming that it's at the very least extremely difficult?

You are again correct, to an extent, there are of course "charlatans" who make claims with the intention of exploting people, and it can often be difficult to discern, from the off, which are the authentic "masters". One manner in which you can verify is by reading their literature, without committing to anything, and seeing if it makes sense. If it doesn't discard it. This could however be somewhat time consuming. It might perhaps be better to investigate a "master", with a proven lineage in his "field".

As for verification of claims, the nature of the claims i.e. the subject matter they pertain to, is such that external verification is not necessarily essential or helpful. The claim that the practice of meditation can cultivate a happier state of mind, might perhaps be supported by fMRI images, that show the part of the brain associated with happiness are more active before and after meditation. However, knowing this does not lead to a happier state of mind. Practicing meditation for oneself, is the only true way to verify whether it makes you happier.
Exactly mangaroosh. Science attempts to reduce bias. Your method allows for the maximum amount of bias which is why there are millions of concepts of god and one atomic theory

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A nice philosophical problem that is not really addressed by science.

but which is addressed by spiritual investigation.

roosh · 17-08-2010 01:59AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The things he mentioned in the video

such as....

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so they were both working with different definitions of the word, neither of which can be shown to be any more "true" than the other. So they were both straw manning each other.

Except that Chopra clearly stated, that he wasn't working on Harris presumed definition, and didn't argue against Harris concept, but rather in favour of his own. While Harris was arguing against his own presumed definition - hence he was strawmanning, while Chopra wasn't.

That is just the nature of the debate, whoever is arguing in favour of their concept, be it God or Quantum Theory, cannot be accused of strawmanning. It is only if they attempt to argue against their opponent, while presuming an incorrect conceptualisation of their opponents argument.

That doesn't mean that Chopra was in any way successful in the debate, and indeed, Harris was the better debater. It did however highlight a fundamental issue with regard to "the great debate".

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 02:12AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

The response, that this is in reply to, was about the statement of me not being anti-science, and the subsequent contrived misunderstanding.

However, to put the concept of God in unequivocal terms (conceptually at least), and that isn't just my concept.

Our true nature, that is, what you and I actually are, and what everything actually is, is what is referred to as God.

or to borrow a more succinct explanation from the Upanishads, of the worlds third largest religion (Hinduism):
Atman is Brahman

[/I]Hindu - wiki

That is one particular concept of god within Hinduism. not "the actual concept of god"

mangaroosh wrote: »

I'll presume you mean the lip-service comment, and not the devestation one.

We can discuss the limitations of scicence if you wish, as you allude to it in the final comment below.

We have discussed them at length. As much as I wish to discuss anything, I wish to discuss how personal experience does any better.

mangaroosh wrote: »

You are again correct, to an extent, there are of course "charlatans" who make claims with the intention of exploting people, and it can often be difficult to discern, from the off, which are the authentic "masters". One manner in which you can verify is by reading their literature, without committing to anything, and seeing if it makes sense. If it doesn't discard it. This could however be somewhat time consuming. It might perhaps be better to investigate a "master", with a proven lineage in his "field".

"If it doesn't make sense, discard it". Does that not presume that the concept you have of god is already somewhat correct? How can you possibly say that someone who claims to have gotten closer to god than you ever have is a charlatan, or wrong for that matter? To me that's like you've just asked three different people what's in a room that you've never been into, got three different answers and gone with the one that "makes sense to you". The problem of course being that what "makes sense to you" isn't worth crap until you actually go into the room and look for yourself, ie there is absolutely no way for you to tell a true master from a false one.

Tbh it sounds to me like, rather than trying to tap into the true nature of reality, you're just trying to confirm your own preconceptions.

mangaroosh wrote: »

As for verification of claims, the nature of the claims i.e. the subject matter they pertain to, is such that external verification is not necessarily essential or helpful. The claim that the practice of meditation can cultivate a happier state of mind, might perhaps be supported by fMRI images, that show the part of the brain associated with happiness are more active before and after meditation. However, knowing this does not lead to a happier state of mind. Practicing meditation for oneself, is the only true way to verify whether it makes you happier.

Sure, meditation makes you feel happier. What does that have to do with tapping into the true nature of reality?

mangaroosh wrote: »

but which is addressed by spiritual investigation.

It's addressed in such a way that it's impossible to tell true claims from false ones, other than that they agree with your own preconceptions

Sam Vimes · 17-08-2010 02:23AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

such as....

Um, watch the video

mangaroosh wrote: »

Except that Chopra clearly stated, that he wasn't working on Harris presumed definition, and didn't argue against Harris concept, but rather in favour of his own. While Harris was arguing against his own presumed definition - hence he was strawmanning, while Chopra wasn't.

That is just the nature of the debate, whoever is arguing in favour of their concept, be it God or Quantum Theory, cannot be accused of strawmanning. It is only if they attempt to argue against their opponent, while presuming an incorrect conceptualisation of their opponents argument.

That doesn't mean that Chopra was in any way successful in the debate, and indeed, Harris was the better debater. It did however highlight a fundamental issue with regard to "the great debate".

Right so Chopra argued using his own definition, Harris argued using his own definition, hence Harris was straw manning but not Chopra. I think I can safely say that most atheists don't actually give a crap about Chopra's definition of god; I would have some doubt as to whether Harris even has an any way strong opinion one way or another about Chopra's god so Chopra was in fact arguing against a concept that Harris was most likely only vaguely opposed to if at all and inasmuch as you can be opposed to such a poorly defined concept. In order not to straw man Chopra Harris would have had to defend a position he does not actually hold, assuming he took any tack other than telling Chopra that his concept was nothing but wishy washy sciency sounding bullsh!t

As I'm sure you seen on this forum many times, if religion kept itself to itself atheists would never talk about it. Atheists generally have no interest in discussing wishy washy notions about ill-defined cloud beings that may or may not exist outside our universe. We care about the effects that religion has on people's lives so that's what Harris talked about. We simply do not care one way or another whether Chopra's god exists because the existence of such an ill-defined being is irrelevant.He might as well be arguing that there is a yellow rock on the fourth planet of a solar system in the Andromeda galaxy in that the only reasonable response anyone could give if he won the debate was: so what?

TheBardWest · 17-08-2010 10:32AM

Here's a question: Which of the presenters do you feel have had a more positive impact on the world and why?

Turtwig · 17-08-2010 11:23AM

The notion of "But that's not my God your referring to." Is extremely common and unfortunately a sad fact of reality. Time and again when I watched debates between atheists/agnostics and theists this argument is commonly used. It can be used in either one or two forms.
"We're debating the motion on the existence of God. I'm not discussing my religious belief here."
or
"That's true and it may apply to many peoples belief in God, but not mine."

It's a beautiful theistic dodge as you can always claim the bits you don't agree with are the not impression of God that had formed in your head. As NS recently alluded to God nearly always tends to reaffirm what you believe anyway. However, like Sam argues, if millions of people believe in particular version of God with common characteristics then surely you should debate that aspect of God. Or at the very least the group of theists responsible for the debate should ensure their side is actually being represented.

roosh · 18-08-2010 06:07PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I knew this is what you were implying but wasn't sure of where
you were coming from. Now that I've read your response it's clear
that you just misunderstand the "whole ideology", as you put it

You haven't thought this through properly, if you read the post you just
made debating the question of "skepticism" it's unbelievable how religiously bounded
your argument is. You've set up your own boundaries to finding an answer

finding something meaningful.

I'm not entirely sure how the reply was "religiously bound". This could perhaps be a perception, based on the position I am advocating.

The challenge of scepticism was based more on the indiviudal sceptics interpretation of the ideology, as opposed to the ideology of scepticism itself. It was also based on the question of whether scepticism had been applied to the ideology of scepticism, and other such assumptions upon which scepticism is based.

The ideology of scepticism can only be applied by an individual themselves, so their application of scepticism is open to scepticism. While the ideology itself might be noble, it's application - by an individual - could be done on a pseudo-intellectual basis, as a means to support their pre-existing ideology, instead of being used to question it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's no wonder religious people think atheism is so empty, when you're
looking at the world though religious beer goggles everything does seem
bleak....

I'm not entirely sure which meaning of the word "religious" you are inferring, but I would be quite irreligious, in the sense that I do not necessarily follow any particular religion.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'll get more explicit, instead of questioning skepticism of skepticism you
chose to attack the idea by arguing "we're just choosing some things
over others".
That's ridiculous because the idea of being skeptical
of something means to question whether it is true or false &
whether doing something, be it true or false, is worthwhile anyway.

Indeed it is, but the selective use of scepticism, by an individual, could mean it is adopted as an outward, pseudo-intellectual position, to protect from any possibility of ever being wrong.

This is contrasted with a position of open-mindedness, where things are investigated, on their own merits before being accepted or rejected.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nobody has claimed to be skeptical of everything, if that was the
case then we would be skeptical of whether the ground is there,
and whether the ground will go just because I assumed it would
be there, and whether the ground would trick me by making me believe
it was there only to go because I thought it was, and then whether
all of the theories of physics that show the ground cannot just disappear
(due to the molecular/electromagnetic etc... forces not allowing this) were all tricks or not.

This is just plain madness, you know damn well that
the idea of skepticism is within bounds,
e.g. it is based on previous assumptions. I know that you know this but
you've obviously forgotten it for other reasons
The ground is there (in your mind, it's there anyway!) because of your experience
with it, and we have proof right now because as you read this the table
legs of your table are in contact with - the ground :pac:

True Scepticism cannot be based on assumptions, as evidence is required to verify any hypotheses, including the assumptions.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

To be skeptical of something is not to pick and choose, it's to assess it's
validity & base your conclusions on the evidence for why you think
it to be true.

The ideology and it's application by individuals are two very different things. While an individual may espouse a pure form of scepticism, they may, in actual fact, practice pseudo-scepticism.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This conversation is obviously about religion - of which evidence for it's
assertions is scant - so you've chosen to attack the idea of skepticism
because skepticism of religion is within bounds - the bounds are the lack of
evidence and the willingness to submit & give yourself over to the
idea that everything will be right because you wish it to be so & that
you have 2000 years of people willingly lying to support the facade...
I'm sure someone could describe the bounds better but the point
of all of this is that you made a good point but for malicious
purposes - to insult atheists because you misunderstand the basic
concepts & want to defend the idea of religion.

The conversation is about God, which is distinct from religion. While the latter is entirely dependent on the former, the former is entirely independent of the latter.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I know the idea you're speaking of when you argue for the
5000 year old "new age" spiritual god but if you're honest with yourself
you'll realise that this idea is just a love of nature & life &
bewonderment at how crazy it all is. The idea of god & the afterlife
in any way we can imagine is toxic - it's deluded & tricked people for
2000 years & needs to be done away with through education & thought.

The idea of God and the afterlife, are two concepts which have been completely misinterpreted. They are not toxic in themselves, as no concepts can be, it is the actions of the people who misuse them, that make them toxic. Instead of being done away with, as the likelihood of that is rather slim, people should be re-educated as to what the concepts actually refer to.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Even arguing for the idea of a god when you know it to be true just
shows how unsure you are of the idea, it shouldn't matter what
anyone cares or thinks because this spiritual god is
going to accept us all anyway - so why bother??? No, it's just a cancer
lying over from the 5000 year old submission to authority that you're
still perpetuating in a "new age" fashion.
If you really believed in that idea of a spiritual god you wouldn't waste one
second of your life on any concept of religion or afterlife because it's all
going to come anyway & you're ignoring all of the world that this
spiritual god has created & all of the misery that still exists as a result of
this world the spiritual god created.

I'm not so much arguing for the idea of God, rather arguing against the misguided idea of God that abounds.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, it's just acting in crazy ways - like following the assertions of the
bible - something the majority of the "new age" movement don't do unless
it's something like "don't murder, that's in the bible right?".
An example is trying to convert people? WHY??? Because the bible said so!
Well why are you listening to the bible if you believe in this spiritual god
instead of the "Biological god"? Because god wrote the bible through
the original writers? So he wrote Deuteronomy 18:20-22; as well...
Follow that if you're going to follow all of this delusion, otherwise you're
just picking & choosing a fantasy because of the authority of the
past has convinced you it's all true...

Not sure where the Bible came into it.

roosh · 18-08-2010 07:53PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is one particular concept of god within Hinduism. not "the actual concept of god"

Brahman is the same for all Hindus. Different people, however, have different levels of belief, understanding and realisation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We have discussed them at length. As much as I wish to discuss anything, I wish to discuss how personal experience does any better.

It's not so much that it does any better, it is the fact, that the nature of existence is personal experience, so every endeavour, scientific and spiritual relies on it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"If it doesn't make sense, discard it". Does that not presume that the concept you have of god is already somewhat correct? How can you possibly say that someone who claims to have gotten closer to god than you ever have is a charlatan, or wrong for that matter? To me that's like you've just asked three different people what's in a room that you've never been into, got three different answers and gone with the one that "makes sense to you". The problem of course being that what "makes sense to you" isn't worth crap until you actually go into the room and look for yourself, ie there is absolutely no way for you to tell a true master from a false one.

"if it doesn't make sense" is not meant to be interpreted solely on the basis of intellectual sense, as it spiritual philosophy is grounded in, or rather arises from, spiritual practice.

It's more like hearing the accounts of three different people, one of whom may come from a heritage of room investigation, spanning over 2500yrs,
about what is in the room you have never been into. Then listening to their instructions on how to enter that room for yourself. Discerning which set of instructions to follow is entirely down to the individual, but it might be a better idea to follow the one with the greater experience, and heritage.

Then following those instructions and entering the room, and deciding for yourself, whether the initial account makes sense, i.e. matches your experience.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tbh it sounds to me like, rather than trying to tap into the true nature of reality, you're just trying to confirm your own preconceptions.

Sure, meditation makes you feel happier. What does that have to do with tapping into the true nature of reality?

It is quite the opposite of confirming one's own preconceptions, it is about questioning those preconceptions.

One of the side-effects of meditation is increased happiness, but meditation is the practice through which deeply held, sub-conscious assumptions can be brought into consciousness and questioned.

Some of these assumptions pertain directly to the nature of who/what "we" are. Meditation is the means through which we can challenge our assumptions about who/what we are, and therefore see ourselves as we actually exist - which pertains directly to the nature of reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's addressed in such a way that it's impossible to tell true claims from false ones, other than that they agree with your own preconceptions

Incorrect.

You personally can verify any claim that is made, by investigating them for yourself.

Here's a novel idea, try approaching it without preconceptions, and see how you fare.

roosh · 18-08-2010 08:09PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, watch the video

Why? Can you not back up your point?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so Chopra argued using his own definition,

Again, not his own. He may have described it in manner he hoped would be intelligible to a scientific audience (and failed miserably), but the conception used was pretty much the one in the vid that was posted.

It was pretty much Brahman, the Hindu God

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Harris argued using his own definition, hence Harris was straw manning but not Chopra.

He was debating against Chopra, hence he "strawmanned" Chopra.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I can safely say that most atheists don't actually give a crap about Chopra's definition of god;

"Chopra's definition" of God (a.k.a Brahman the Hindu God) is, unfortunately for some atheists, very relevant to the question of the existence of God

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would have some doubt as to whether Harris even has an any way strong opinion one way or another about Chopra's god so Chopra was in fact arguing against a concept that Harris was most likely only vaguely opposed to if at all and inasmuch as you can be opposed to such a poorly defined concept. In order not to straw man Chopra Harris would have had to defend a position he does not actually hold, assuming he took any tack other than telling Chopra that his concept was nothing but wishy washy sciency sounding bullsh!t

I agree, Harris has a very narrow understanding of what God actually is, and like many atheists, he argues against his own misperception of God, and assumed that his misperception is what everyone believes in.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I'm sure you seen on this forum many times, if religion kept itself to itself atheists would never talk about it.

Although I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of the above point, it must be pointed out that Religion and God are two separate "things".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheists generally have no interest in discussing wishy washy notions about ill-defined cloud beings that may or may not exist outside our universe.

It is exactly that which atheists discuss. That isn't what God is, despite the fact that it may be sub-consciously engrained in the minds of some.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We care about the effects that religion has on people's lives so that's what Harris talked about.

Perhaps the distinction between the future of religion and the future of God should have been made.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We simply do not care one way or another whether Chopra's god exists because the existence of such an ill-defined being is irrelevant.He might as well be arguing that there is a yellow rock on the fourth planet of a solar system in the Andromeda galaxy in that the only reasonable response anyone could give if he won the debate was: so what?

The true nature of yourself is entirely relevant, to every single thing you do!

roosh · 18-08-2010 08:20PM

Malty_T wrote: »

The notion of "But that's not my God your referring to." Is extremely common and unfortunately a sad fact of reality. Time and again when I watched debates between atheists/agnostics and theists this argument is commonly used. It can be used in either one or two forms.
"We're debating the motion on the existence of God. I'm not discussing my religious belief here."
or
"That's true and it may apply to many peoples belief in God, but not mine."

It's a beautiful theistic dodge as you can always claim the bits you don't agree with are the not impression of God that had formed in your head.

The reason that response is so prevalent, is more likely to do with atheists debating against their own particular conception of what other people believe.

OR

perhaps it is simply that the majority of atheists seem to have a very limited understanding of "the Judeo-Christian God", which is then applied to the Islamic God, and then assumed to apply to all Gods - without any understanding whatsoever of the original context i.e.spirituality.

Malty_T wrote: »

As NS recently alluded to God nearly always tends to reaffirm what you believe anyway.

In what way?

Malty_T wrote: »

However, like Sam argues, if millions of people believe in particular version of God with common characteristics then surely you should debate that aspect of God.

If millions of people believe in Chopra's version of the observer principle, should that also be debated? Equally, does disproving that particular mis-interpretation, disprove the observer principle?

Malty_T wrote: »

Or at the very least the group of theists responsible for the debate should ensure their side is actually being represented.

Just because Chopra didn't try and "sell" the invisible cloud man, that most atheists argue against.

Sam Vimes · 18-08-2010 09:39PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

It's not so much that it does any better, it is the fact, that the nature of existence is personal experience, so every endeavour, scientific and spiritual relies on it.

"if it doesn't make sense" is not meant to be interpreted solely on the basis of intellectual sense, as it spiritual philosophy is grounded in, or rather arises from, spiritual practice.

It's more like hearing the accounts of three different people, one of whom may come from a heritage of room investigation, spanning over 2500yrs,
about what is in the room you have never been into. Then listening to their instructions on how to enter that room for yourself. Discerning which set of instructions to follow is entirely down to the individual, but it might be a better idea to follow the one with the greater experience, and heritage.

Then following those instructions and entering the room, and deciding for yourself, whether the initial account makes sense, i.e. matches your experience.

Ah right so arguments from authority. If I was to do that in an objective way without simply picking whichever one I liked the best I would literally spend the rest of my life investigating the millions of different and contradictory claims of this type

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is quite the opposite of confirming one's own preconceptions, it is about questioning those preconceptions.

One of the side-effects of meditation is increased happiness, but meditation is the practice through which deeply held, sub-conscious assumptions can be brought into consciousness and questioned.

Some of these assumptions pertain directly to the nature of who/what "we" are. Meditation is the means through which we can challenge our assumptions about who/what we are, and therefore see ourselves as we actually exist - which pertains directly to the nature of reality.

Well mangaroosh I think you need to do a bit more of it then. Our paths first crossed during the Lisbon campaign and I actually dismissed you as a troll when after dozens of different people presenting you with unequivocal proof of the no campaign lying you uttered the words "I don't see that the no side have lied at all". You may well still be of that opinion but I can guarantee you absolute 100% certainty that you are wrong and that your own preconceptions massively clouded your judgement during that campaign.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Incorrect.

You personally can verify any claim that is made, by investigating them for yourself.

Internal verification is not verification.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Here's a novel idea, try approaching it without preconceptions, and see how you fare.

I'd say the same to you mate. There's enough in every major religion to satisfy large numbers of people of their truth, that's how religions survive. I can say with relative certainty that had you approached any other religion with the eagerness and willingness that you approach this Hinduism thing you'd now be here preach to us about that wonders of that religion.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Why? Can you not back up your point?

Yes I can but I fail to see the point of transcribing Sam Harris' part of the video.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, not his own. He may have described it in manner he hoped would be intelligible to a scientific audience (and failed miserably), but the conception used was pretty much the one in the vid that was posted.

Well of course he failed miserably. He tried to talk science to scientists and unlike his followers the scientists could tell he was misusing scientific terms to try to give his nonsense credibility

mangaroosh wrote: »

He was debating against Chopra, hence he "strawmanned" Chopra.

And Chopra was debating against him

mangaroosh wrote: »

I agree, Harris has a very narrow understanding of what God actually is, and like many atheists, he argues against his own misperception of God, and assumed that his misperception is what everyone believes in.

Although I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of the above point, it must be pointed out that Religion and God are two separate "things".

It is exactly that which atheists discuss. That isn't what God is, despite the fact that it may be sub-consciously engrained in the minds of some.

Perhaps the distinction between the future of religion and the future of God should have been made.

The true nature of yourself is entirely relevant, to every single thing you do!

Seeing you talk about your own personal perception god with such absolute certainty as if what you're saying is as plainly factual as that the earth is round makes me more certain than ever that it's all a load of nonsense, because I can pop over to the christianity forum right now (or any of the other religious forums) and talk to any number of people who will speak with just as much unequivocal certainty of the plain truth of their beliefs and of course the reliability of personal experience and lack of a need for external verification. Pretty much nothing you all believe is remotely similar, you share only three common threads:

1. What you believe is right and everyone else is wrong
2. Personal experience alone is the best and only way to "know god" (or whatever). External verification is unnecessary. (Long arguments against empiricism usually follow)
3. None of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that your beliefs are any more true than any of the others

A maximum of one of all of those people/groups can be right but what's far more likely is that they are all wrong. The mere existence of people who are just as certain as you of contradictory things proves the value of externally verifiable evidence over personal experience alone. My advice to you is the same as it is to everyone who tries to make out that personal experience alone is all the verification you need and no external verification is necessary (or even possible): you are wrong. And I can say that because if I talk to 100 people all with contradictory beliefs then in at least 99 out of 100 cases the person I am saying it to needs to heed my advice because what they're so certain about is wrong

roosh · 18-08-2010 11:01PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah right so arguments from authority. If I was to do that in an objective way without simply picking whichever one I liked the best I would literally spend the rest of my life investigating the millions of different and contradictory claims of this type

Incorrect.

No argument from authority. The point about authority was related to the decision making process, of which approach to try first. This is the means by which you can not have to spend the rest of your life investigating the millions of different claims. Choose the most reputable first and investigate that.

Just because it is the most reputable doesn't make it correct, but it might be like choosing a career path in cosmology. You might be better off going with Big Bang cosmology as opposed to Plasma Cosmology - although the choice is completely yours

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well mangaroosh I think you need to do a bit more of it then. Our paths first crossed during the Lisbon campaign and I actually dismissed you as a troll when after dozens of different people presenting you with unequivocal proof of the no campaign lying you uttered the words "I don't see that the no side have lied at all".

hahahahhahahahaha "I think you were wrong about the Lisbon Treaty, so therefore you are incorrect about God hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

Apart from being wholly irrelevant, it is also

Incorrect.

I didn't argue in favour of the No campaign, but rather against the Yes campaign. For the less discerning person, that may seem like the same thing, but I can assure you it isn't. My argument was based on the empty rhetoric and undisputable scare tectics used by the Yes campaign, and the manner in which the constitutional rights of the people of Europe were circumnavigated, by the re-wording of the EU Constitution.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You may well still be of that opinion but I can guarantee you absolute 100% certainty that you are wrong and that your own preconceptions massively clouded your judgement during that campaign

As part of your 100% certain guarantee, you can start by outlining my preconceptions, and then discussing how they clouded my judgement. Don't forget to outline the preconceptions, bcos they are kind of central to the whole point.

As for the No campaign lying, what was it they lied about, in the second referendum? Not what was your interpretation of what they claimed, that could subsequently be construed as lies, but what actual statements were lies. Again, you might have to PM this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Internal verification is not verification.

It might not be, but the nature of human existence kind of relies on it, so that is a bit of a stumbling block.

Just be aware, however, that the peer review process does not magically circumvent this. Every single scientist who peer reviews anothers work relies on, gues what...........that's right, their own experience.

Cue, that isn't how the peer review process works.....

It is the nature of human existence. Any answer should be confined to outlining how this very fact of nature is magically circumnavigated.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd say the same to you mate. There's enough in every major religion to satisfy large numbers of people of their truth, that's how religions survive. I can say with relative certainty that had you approached any other religion with the eagerness and willingness that you approach this Hinduism thing you'd now be here preach to us about that wonders of that religion.

Sam, honestly, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. You are certain that if I approached any other religion with the eagerness and willingness I've approached Hinduism......

What can you tell me about how I have approached Hinduism Sam? What is my experience with the Hindu religion to date?

How have I approached other religions Sam? Or have I approached them at all? I really am intrigued to hear your answers to these questions, which you will answer with such a great degree of certainty.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I can but I fail to see the point of transcribing Sam Harris' part of the video.

3-4 words will due. I'll even write them for you, personal God, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent.

Just in case I'm wrong, you can add your own.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well of course he failed miserably. He tried to talk science to scientists and unlike his followers the scientists could tell he was misusing scientific terms to try to give his nonsense credibility

so you are just re-affiriming what I said. cheers for that

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And Chopra was debating against him

And told him that he wasn't talking about the God Harris was arguing against.

Again however, you can only be guilty of arguing strawmen, if you are arguing against a persons conception of something. Chopra was arguing in favour of his conception, while Harris was arguing against his conception.

Therefore, Chopra could not have argued strawmen.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seeing you talk about your own personal perception god with such absolute certainty as if what you're saying is as plainly factual as that the earth is round

come on, we all know the earth isn't round Sam.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

makes me more certain than ever that it's all a load of nonsense, because I can pop over to the christianity forum right now (or any of the other religious forums) and talk to any number of people who will speak with just as much unequivocal certainty of the plain truth of their beliefs and of course the reliability of personal experience and lack of a need for external verification.

Interesting that this is your idea of evidence. Because people all argue with the same conviction, then they are all wrong.

How about we apply the same "logic" to the compteting cosmological theories of the big bang and Plasma Cosmology? Well in this case we might be right to say they are both wrong, but you can see the problem can't you.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Pretty much nothing you all believe is remotely similar, you share only three common threads:

1. What you believe is right and everyone else is wrong

Incorrect. It is possible for someone to be right, and someone else to be wrong.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. Personal experience alone is the best and only way to "know god" (or whatever). External verification is unnecessary. (Long arguments against empiricism usually follow)

Somewhat correct, but only slightly.

Personal experience alone is the best, and indeed only way to know anything!! Unless you can outline how you know something that doesn't involve your personal experience. That would be very interesting.

External verification is a misnomer. Anything "externally verifiable" evidence must be verified by an indiviudual. The verification process subsequntly "internalises" it.

However, any of the claims of spirituality, can be verified by anyone. That is, whatever spiritual claim arises form someones personal experience, can be investigated - through spiritual investigation i.e. observing your own mind - by someone other than the person who experiences it. That is "external verification".

again, any response on the nature of "external verification" should address the circumnavigation of the nature of human existence, issue.

Try actually reading what is posted next time, because you will see that there was no long arguments against empiricism, but rather in favour of it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. None of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that your beliefs are any more true than any of the others

Try reading some spiritual literature on meditation, then practice it. Then, when you realise that those claims are verified, then try moving on to somethng more advanced.

You could just investigate the claim, that your true nature is what God is. This would requyire you to investigate your true nature, though.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A maximum of one of all of those people/groups can be right but what's far more likely is that they are all wrong.

Indeed one of all of those groups could be right.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The mere existence of people who are just as certain as you of contradictory things proves the value of externally verifiable evidence over personal experience alone.

Again, the outlining of the circumnavigation, of the nature of human existence, will seriously help your case here, in fact, it pretty much depends on it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My advice to you is the same as it is to everyone who tries to make out that personal experience alone is all the verification you need and no external verification is necessary (or even possible): you are wrong.

How does one come to know anything Sam? This isn't meant to be rhetorical, I'm looking for your acutal answer.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I can say that because if I talk to 100 people all with contradictory beliefs then in at least 99 out of 100 cases the person I am saying it to needs to heed my advice because what they're so certain about is wrong

When you meet that 1 person, you should probably take their advice!

Sam Vimes · 19-08-2010 12:03AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

Incorrect.

No argument from authority. The point about authority was related to the decision making process, of which approach to try first. This is the means by which you can not have to spend the rest of your life investigating the millions of different claims. Choose the most reputable first and investigate that.
Just because it is the most reputable doesn't make it correct, but it might be like choosing a career path in cosmology. You might be better off going with Big Bang cosmology as opposed to Plasma Cosmology - although the choice is completely yours

None of them have any evidence, therefore none of them are reputable

mangaroosh wrote: »

hahahahhahahahaha "I think you were wrong about the Lisbon Treaty, so therefore you are incorrect about God hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

Apart from being wholly irrelevant, it is also

Incorrect.

I didn't argue in favour of the No campaign, but rather against the Yes campaign. For the less discerning person, that may seem like the same thing, but I can assure you it isn't. My argument was based on the empty rhetoric and undisputable scare tectics used by the Yes campaign, and the manner in which the constitutional rights of the people of Europe were circumnavigated, by the re-wording of the EU Constitution.

As part of your 100% certain guarantee, you can start by outlining my preconceptions, and then discussing how they clouded my judgement. Don't forget to outline the preconceptions, bcos they are kind of central to the whole point.

As for the No campaign lying, what was it they lied about, in the second referendum? Not what was your interpretation of what they claimed, that could subsequently be construed as lies, but what actual statements were lies. Again, you might have to PM this.

I'm not getting into it again other than to say that there were indisputable scare tactics on both sides but you only choose to acknolwedge those from one side and that "the constitutional rights of the people of Europe were circumnavigated, by the re-wording of the EU Constitution" is one of the lies. You didn't believe the irrefutable evidence you were presented with over and over and over again over the course of weeks during the campaign so I very much doubt I can change your mind now.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Sam, honestly, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. You are certain that if I approached any other religion with the eagerness and willingness I've approached Hinduism......

What can you tell me about how I have approached Hinduism Sam? What is my experience with the Hindu religion to date?

How have I approached other religions Sam? Or have I approached them at all? I really am intrigued to hear your answers to these questions, which you will answer with such a great degree of certainty.

1. I said relative certainty, not absolute certainty.
2. My opinion is based on the fact that it's what the overwhelming majority of people do. If you feel that you're different to all the others, that's one more trait that you share with all of them

mangaroosh wrote: »

3-4 words will due. I'll even write them for you, personal God, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent.

Just in case I'm wrong, you can add your own.

I really don't understand why you're asking me to repeat what Sam harris said in the video. Did you not watch it or something? What could possibly be gained by me posting some lines we've both already heard?

mangaroosh wrote: »

It might not be, but the nature of human existence kind of relies on it, so that is a bit of a stumbling block.

Just be aware, however, that the peer review process does not magically circumvent this. Every single scientist who peer reviews anothers work relies on, gues what...........that's right, their own experience.

Cue, that isn't how the peer review process works.....

It is the nature of human existence. Any answer should be confined to outlining how this very fact of nature is magically circumnavigated.

Interesting that this is your idea of evidence. Because people all argue with the same conviction, then they are all wrong.

How about we apply the same "logic" to the compteting cosmological theories of the big bang and Plasma Cosmology? Well in this case we might be right to say they are both wrong, but you can see the problem can't you.

Incorrect. It is possible for someone to be right, and someone else to be wrong.

Somewhat correct, but only slightly.

Personal experience alone is the best, and indeed only way to know anything!! Unless you can outline how you know something that doesn't involve your personal experience. That would be very interesting.

External verification is a misnomer. Anything "externally verifiable" evidence must be verified by an indiviudual. The verification process subsequntly "internalises" it.

However, any of the claims of spirituality, can be verified by anyone. That is, whatever spiritual claim arises form someones personal experience, can be investigated - through spiritual investigation i.e. observing your own mind - by someone other than the person who experiences it. That is "external verification".

again, any response on the nature of "external verification" should address the circumnavigation of the nature of human existence, issue.

Try actually reading what is posted next time, because you will see that there was no long arguments against empiricism, but rather in favour of it.

Try reading some spiritual literature on meditation, then practice it. Then, when you realise that those claims are verified, then try moving on to somethng more advanced.

You could just investigate the claim, that your true nature is what God is. This would requyire you to investigate your true nature, though.

Indeed one of all of those groups could be right.

Again, the outlining of the circumnavigation, of the nature of human existence, will seriously help your case here, in fact, it pretty much depends on it.

How does one come to know anything Sam? This isn't meant to be rhetorical, I'm looking for your acutal answer.

When you meet that 1 person, you should probably take their advice!

As you said yourself, the purpose (at least one of the purposes) of things like the peer review process is to reduce bias. It doesn't "magically circumvent" anything but it has been proven literally billions of times to produce more accurate results than just one person giving their opinion. Your argument against empiricism relies on ignoring the fact that our entire civilization is built on it. If it was as unreliable as internal personal experience we would all still be living in caves

The existence of millions of different people all believing contradictory things with absolute certainty, all of whom not only claim that personal experience alone with no external/empirical verification is enough to know their beliefs are true but that it is the only way to truly know reality/god/whatever they happen to believe in, does not necessarily prove that all of their beliefs are wrong but it does show three things:

1. Since only one of them can be right, there is a approximately a 0.00001% chance that they are the one who is exactly right
2. Their arguments in favour of internal personal experience alone are wrong. If internal personal experience alone was enough to be able to tell truth from falsehood then the beliefs of everyone who makes this argument would all be true. They are not all true. At least 99.99999% of them are false. Therefore the argument that internal personal experience is enough to tell truth from falsehood is wrong. Internal personal experience is not enough. It cannot be enough. It fails in at least 99.9999% of cases. At best it brings almost everyone who solely relies on it to the wrong conclusion. Do you dispute this?
3. Their arguments against empiricism in favour of internal personal experience are wrong because empiricism does not fail 99.9999% of the time. It is not totally reliable but it's a hell of a lot more reliable than a 99.9999% failure rate. Our civilization depends on this. But even if this were not the case this would not be an argument in favour of internal personal experience, the fact would remain that it fails 99.9999% of the time. This argument would mean that there is no way to reliably determine truth. Before your argument in favour of personal experience can be accepted you must fully explain how it is that 99.9999% of people can be absolutely convinced of a falsehood using the method you describe as the only way to determine truth and how you are different to all of the people that the method has failed

Turtwig · 19-08-2010 12:46AM

*Suggests having this discussion on twitter.*

roosh · 19-08-2010 01:52PM

Let's, for argument sake, say that God does not exist. This will hopefully allow us to examine the below, without fear of losing ground.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

None of them have any evidence, therefore none of them are reputable

There is lots of evidence to support Buddhist claims, so Buddhism is reputable.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not getting into it again other than to say that there were indisputable scare tactics on both sides but you only choose to acknolwedge those from one side and that "the constitutional rights of the people of Europe were circumnavigated, by the re-wording of the EU Constitution" is one of the lies. You didn't believe the irrefutable evidence you were presented with over and over and over again over the course of weeks during the campaign so I very much doubt I can change your mind now.

It's interesting that you say you don't want to get into, this may perhaps have been a consideration before you brought it up!

However, seeing as how it was raised (yet is entirly irrelevant), there was absolutely no evidence provided to refute the claim that the Lisbon Treaty was anything other than a re-worded version of the EU constitution. In fact, all the evidence pointed to this being the very case.

The arguments you might be thinking of pertain to the legal guarantees. Of course it might prove interesting to check their current status.

As for the scare tactics on both sides, you fail to see the real issue and the real difference. Those advocating a Yes were looking to change the status quo, to obtain greater power - or at least unwittingly for other groups - and they lied and tried to scare people into doing so.

Those advocating a no vote, were looking to preserve the status quo, and stood to gain nothing other than [potential] popularity, among those who they represented (as the Yes side also stood to gain).

The Yes campaign was based on nothing but empty rhetoric and fallacious claims, playing on peoples fears of economic recovery - which had absolutely nothing to do with the Libson Treaty.

Any scare tactics used by the No side - which by the way were irrelevant, because they were not the ones looking for greater power - were based on potentially real consequences of the EU policies contained in the treaty.

With regard to preconceptions clouding judgement, it was of course your own (and many others) preconceptions of those advocating a no vote, whch clouded your judgement.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. I said relative certainty, not absolute certainty.

Relative to what? Absolutely no certainty at all?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. My opinion is based on the fact that it's what the overwhelming majority of people do. If you feel that you're different to all the others, that's one more trait that you share with all of them

Why, that is not a rational argument at all Sam.

But, before you start confusing yourself here, you were talking about my approach to Hinduism.

I would also be intrigued to see your studies, confirming your assertion that "it's what the overwhelming majority of people do". Or is that just based on your personal experience?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I really don't understand why you're asking me to repeat what Sam harris said in the video. Did you not watch it or something? What could possibly be gained by me posting some lines we've both already heard?

The reason I'm asking Sam, was because you said

Sam Harris was working with the accepted definition of god that is given by the major religions.

and when asked to provide this so called "accepted definition", you couldn't, and tried to argue something else. The real reason is just to highlight your attempted cop-out and to verify that you are talking out your hole.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As you said yourself, the purpose (at least one of the purposes) of things like the peer review process is to reduce bias. It doesn't "magically circumvent" anything but it has been proven literally billions of times to produce more accurate results than just one person giving their opinion. Your argument against empiricism relies on ignoring the fact that our entire civilization is built on it. If it was as unreliable as internal personal experience we would all still be living in caves

"My" argument against empiricism relies on you not being able to understand basic english constructs, because I have not argued against empiricism once. You just presume that I am arguing against it, because I am challenging your misguided view of it.

I'm all for empiricism Sam, and always have been. In fact, I've mentioned it several times, and even stated the the spiritual method is empirically based. I'm even wearing my "empiricism rules" t-shirt.

The issue is that you can't seem to realise that the peer review system is based, not on one persons personal experience, but on the personal experience of lots of people. That doesn't change the fact, that each person relies on their own personal experience.

A further problem is, that you perceive the spiritual method to be just one person giving their opinion, when in fact it is entirely based on peer review and empirical investigation, and has been for over 2500yrs.

Any spiritual claims that are made, are not simply accepted as true. They are investigated by individuals (much like the scientific method - not exactly like, in case you see this point and decide to misconstrue it). These peope then publish their findings, and more people come along and investigate it form themselves.

I'm guessing, you have not carried out any of the experiments that verify General Relativity, you choose to accept that they are true, because you have read about them in "reputable" journals. Well, unlike that, there is no use just accepting spiritual claims, because they are written by a well respected spiritual teacher (respected in his field). Instead, you should not accept them until you verify them for yourself. But you may not trust yourself to be able to distinguish truth from reality.Which would make one wonder why you insist on discussing issues that pertain directly to the nature of reality.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The existence of millions of different people all believing contradictory things with absolute certainty, all of whom not only claim that personal experience alone with no external/empirical verification is enough to know their beliefs are true but that it is the only way to truly know reality/god/whatever they happen to believe in, does not necessarily prove that all of their beliefs are wrong but it does show three things:

if we work with this, despite it being nothing other than your own unsupported opinion.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Since only one of them can be right, there is a approximately a 0.00001% chance that they are the one who is exactly right

No, that is your chance of guessing which one is right.

If one of them is right, then he is 100% right. There is no probability that he is right. Again, that is your chance of guessing which one is right.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. Their arguments in favour of internal personal experience alone are wrong. If internal personal experience alone was enough to be able to tell truth from falsehood then the beliefs of everyone who makes this argument would all be true. They are not all true. At least 99.99999% of them are false. Therefore the argument that internal personal experience is enough to tell truth from falsehood is wrong. Internal personal experience is not enough. It cannot be enough. It fails in at least 99.9999% of cases. At best it brings almost everyone who solely relies on it to the wrong conclusion. Do you dispute this?

Apart from the completely made up figures, that is not a rational argument.

all it takes is for that .000001% to prove the rule to be correct. If that .00001% acquires the truth through personal experience (I'm not sure why you have added "internal" all of a sudden), then personal experience is all that is required.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. Their arguments against empiricism in favour of internal personal experience are wrong because empiricism does not fail 99.9999% of the time. It is not totally reliable but it's a hell of a lot more reliable than a 99.9999% failure rate. Our civilization depends on this. But even if this were not the case this would not be an argument in favour of internal personal experience, the fact would remain that it fails 99.9999% of the time. This argument would mean that there is no way to reliably determine truth. Before your argument in favour of personal experience can be accepted you must fully explain how it is that 99.9999% of people can be absolutely convinced of a falsehood using the method you describe as the only way to determine truth and how you are different to all of the people that the method has failed

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting the argument agianst empiricism Sam, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm the guy wearing the "empiricism rulez" t-shirt remember.

I'm simply stating some of the overlooked assumptions about empiricism, and how every single individual in the peer review process relies on their own personal experience.

You are committing the fallacy of "consensus of untrustworthy individuals".

roosh · 19-08-2010 01:53PM

Malty_T wrote: »

*Suggests having this discussion on twitter.*

good suggestion, it appears to be the style more suited to some around here.

Turtwig · 19-08-2010 02:35PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

all it takes is for that .000001% to prove the rule to be correct. If that .00001% acquires the truth through personal experience (I'm not sure why you have added "internal" all of a sudden), then personal experience is all that is required.

Let's quantify that in terms of a medical diagnosis test. If the test gets the correct diagnosis for .000001% of the population the test is correct?

roosh · 19-08-2010 02:42PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Let's quantify that in terms of a medical diagnosis test. If the test gets the correct diagnosis for .000001% of the population the test is correct?

That is to assume that the exact same test is used for all diagnoses, when in the particular instance we are talking about, that isn't the case.

Where multiple tests are used, the one that produces the correct diagnosis, is correct. Somewhat of a tautology, but then we are stating something which should be self-evidently true.

sticking with the medical science analogy, it would be like everyone espousing the benefits of medical science (personal experience), but using very different diagnoses procedures (differing spiritual or religious approaches)

Michael Shermer/Ben Stiller (Sam Harris) vs. Chopra/random bird

Comments