My workplace continues to be awesome. Today is the first end-of-month we've had using the new system, and to thank us for the work we've put into making it a (relatively) painless transition, the CEO is buying all of us in the building lunch from Krazy Karl's Pizza.
Wootwoot
We're also talking about Chuch Klosterman here. The man whose main focus is popular culture, music and sports. While his approach to American studies is interesting, I would rather not take my cues on science from him. While his views on the shifting viewpoints of history have merit, there are some fields were that approach doesn't translate exactly. Klosterman is terribly witty, but I wouldn't advice taking science lessons from Dotty Parker, either.
Again, we go down to Pascal's Wager with this. What if we're wrong about Jehova? What if we're wrong about Zeus? What if we're wrong about the Spaghetti Monster, Azura Mazda and just about any religion that has already existed or will exist? While we may be uncertain about how some things work, I can definitely guarantee you that there is a colossal leap from that, to the existence of some sort of supreme being who is intricately interested in what I do with my genitals, whether or not people chant its name obsessively enough, and whether or not people wear mixed fibers. There's a difference between the possible and the absurd, especially for an absurd for which there is no conclusive proof.
You ask the question what if we're wrong? I rather think the important question is what if we're right? The placebo effect, Pascal's wager, they all fall apart when you entertain the possibility of a zero entering the equation. Not all propositions are equal and, once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Over the millions of years that we have existed, we have more evidence for the life and mating cycles of the mosquito than we have for the existence of any god, anywhere.
The issues I have with Klosterman is that he often drops the context in favor of his wit. This is something he does consistently, which is why his wit is so celebrated- his witticisms have the guise of deep pronouncements, making him somewhat of a popular culture Deepak Chopra. Hey, things change, perceptions change- well… d’uh, Heraclitus observed that as far back as 500BCE. The fact that perceptions change does not invalidate knowledge. Furthermore, the fact that science evolves over time and revises wrong assumptions and hypotheses does not mean that the entire field of knowledge itself is built on a pack of cards.
If someone stating what they think concerning a set of beliefs is 'cramming their beliefs down the throats of others,' I think your definitions are a little bit off. On the whole, Atheists aren't trying to write laws to favor mandates from one particular sky-god or another, and when a presidential candidate states that they're Christian they don't suddenly find themselves completely unelectable, nor are they trying to pass laws restricting people’s freedoms based on their religious beliefs. I rather think the venom is misplaced in this instance.
The reality that you hold beliefs does not make them exempt from criticism or examination. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but it doesn’t exempt you from the opinions of others. The same goes for me.
Anyways, back to the point: I do not think it is a stretch to say that the more we find out about the universe, the more rational –if surprising- our reality seems to be. It is a reality that seems to have little room for magic or the supernatural, and it is not likely that anthropomorphic personifications of some primitive principle or other that we call ‘gods’ really do exist out there, bending the laws of physics and the universe to favor people who say important words to them. If that notion is outrageous, then we may have different definitions of what reason is. As I understand it, it is the faculty by which we integrate the data that we receive from our observations into abstractions and concepts. The very notion of a god or supreme being isn’t something that is suggested by data, it is something that is suggested by emotion- the emotional need to have someone watching out for us and who has a plan that assures us we are on an orderly path in an intimidating universe. For such a creature to exist, however, a good amount of how the universe works needs to not be so, let alone concepts such as the law of identity would shrivel in the presence of a being whose one defining nature is its inability to be defined. If anything, the sustained belief in a god and in spirits requires a steadfast denial of the data we have accumulated. This is why religion rests on faith, not scientific proof.
In this instance, it would be those who consistently insist that something exists despite proof to the contrary that would be ‘cramming their beliefs’ down someone’s throat, by your definition of it. By my definition, they’re expressing an opinion- I think a terribly misguided one, since we exist in a rational universe, but it is ultimately theirs. For them to cram their opinions down someone’s throat, they would have to create laws to ensure that religion is taught alongside science as scientific fact, that their particular rituals be obligatory at public events, and that only people who are accepted by their religion have access to legal rights.
Mind you, some people who subscribe to these beliefs do support such initiatives, but they tend to be a vocal minority – to assume that all members of one particular religion share in the traits of its extremist is disingenuous. For starters, if it were so, we would already be under a theocracy (it used to be that way, several hundred years ago, but at least in the West most religions have learned to play well with others.) Nevertheless, I do think religious thought is harmful to the individual- it sets up a belief in the supernatural and encourages magical thinking, which will be detrimental to their ability in the measure that they compromise logic to it.
Free will, though, is a thing, and people can believe whatever they want to as long as they don’t force others to believe it by law. And people are free to comment on those beliefs, too. Ultimately, one side is closer to fact than the other, with reality being the ultimate referee for that sort of thing.
I find hopelessly disingenuous and playing semantic games to weasel around them is growing a little tiresome (…) Now, you're arguing for the use of common parlance and 'you know what I meant'.
Let me go back to that, briefly. Ganymede was lamenting the fact that the thread included an actual discussion of contrary opinions. This isn't playing semantics, the OP titled the thread "Do you believe in paranormal things?", the thread was not titled "People who believe in the paranormal, represent!" This isn't an appeal to common parlance, it is an appeal to inference. The reason why such cutting procedure exists in a court of law is because we storytelling monkeys find it natural to expand upon a statement. If you want only "Yes/No", you don't open a thread, you create a surveymonkey poll with just two switches. The intent was very clear, the question was meant to open a discussion.
When you're well aware of what she meant
Not necessarily. I don't know Lithium well, and consider that I live about half an hour away from Boulder, Colorado, which is something not unlike the unofficial Sedona Embassy. I hear talk about 'energy fields' all the time- even from people who are somewhat scientifically literate but still fall for the Deepak Chopra/Marie Brennan/New Age Guru of the moment.
The argument she was putting forth are consistent with the arguments I have heard before: “How can you say there is no soul, if energy can’t be created or destroyed and the body produces a field of energy,” et cetera. Well, the electricity that is produced is the byproduct of a biological process. Nothing is destroyed when the body dies- those processes change, they don’t produce that electricity anymore, they produce something else as they break down.
To assume there is a soul means there has to be something ‘extra’ on top of all that. People assume that this means that the ‘mind’, and the ‘personality’ are that it, but they once again are the byproduct of our biological selves. It seemed to me that the energy field argument was the one being made, so I went on to mention that the popular conception of it vs. what’s actually there don’t exactly line up.
The sheer absurdity and internal contradiction of, "I don't believe in the impossible, ha ha!" when you're demanding that other people prove something actually exists before they could be even remotely reasonable to consider the possibility that something might exist for pages on end before this point.
Talk about believing in the impossible, dang.
That’s a mischaracterization of the position, to be honest. There are things that, according to the knowledge we have accumulated so far, are possible, and there are things that are impossible. The survival of something ‘extra’ after the death of its body, the existence of a never-dying, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that can rearrange the universe at a whim, these are things that are deemed unlikely or impossible.
If you’re asking someone to believe that they exist, proof is needed. I’m sorry, but that’s how thinking works- we are not called to disprove a negative so it is not up to us to prove something doesn't exist. Honestly, we'd be at it all of our lives, every moment of the day, for every weird creature you can come up with. To ridicule someone for demanding proof in the face of a claim offered without proof, a claim that -in the face of everything we know - seems positively absurd by making them seem close minded is only an attempt to displace the onus of proof.
Here, this is a tree- it’s solid, I can touch it, it’s rooted to the ground. If you want to make the claim that there is a Dryad spirit living within it- okay, I’ll believe it when you prove it to me, because all I see is the tree. When I cut it up, all I see are its rings. I can look at its molecular structure, I can even turn it into a chair, and there is still no Dryad. If we are to believe in dryads, then we’re going to have to find them, or sufficient evidence of them outside of fables and stories to make their existence a possibility. This also applies to god, spirits, ghosts, fairies and Justin Bieber’s talent- until proven, they are all claims with very little to support them. I admit they make for fascinating stories, but there's a difference between the story and the grain of truth that inspired it.
My mother and I witnessed something like that ball, but orange in color, as it basically sped through our garden and vanished by one of the walls after passing fairly close to us (and leaving behind a very warm feeling). I still don't know what that phenomenon is, though I guess an abortive ball lightning is the likeliest explanation. The pity is that those balls never form when you need to get a hold of them for close study, so we know very little about them. Which is a pity, because they are cool.
This patient basically has been horrible to everyone, and she tried to berate me for not calling her back to keep her up to date on the state of her account... um. No, bitch, it's YOUR account. I have you and hundreds of other patients calling every day. Your account is your responsibility. If I were responsible for babysitting every account on file, I wouldn't even have time to do my actual duties.
Thank goodness my boss came down and put the fear of the spaghetti monster in her.
@Insomnia said in Pokemon Go:
Young man killed after being lured to the location. (No, this isn't the one on Snopes which was false.)
Okay... I don't want to sound calloused... but what the hell? I grew up in Ecuador. When I was a teenager in Ecuador, you DID NOT go out into the street at night by yourself, or even with just a plus one, after a certain time because you were going to end up mugged, dead, or both and worse. If this app had been around when I was a teenager, we would have never gone out at night into the streets to play it... or we would have gone in a gaggle of five PLUS people.
Guatemala is just as dangerous at night as Ecuador is. Did this mother not teach her child about the nature of where he lives? You don't go wandering down random streets at night- stick to public and crowded places, and bring a group with you. That's what tourists do.
@SG OH GOD, THE VOCAL FRY.
When I had voice students during my last year of my Masters, I had to fight uphill to get the teenage girls to drop the goddamned vocal fry because it will wreck your voice.
Me: "Is this for anesthesia?"
Patient: "No, this is for Rob."
Me: "...."
Well, I went to Ecuador on the news that my mother wasn't doing too well. She passed away on the 21st at 8 pm on the dot. I've lost my mother and my aunt in a space of two months.
She was pretty much holding on until I got there. Three days after I arrived she became non-responsive and basically withered away in the blink of an eye.
Fuck this year. Seriously, fuck it hard.
Yes, by all means, winter, go ahead and make me sick just when I have a major christmas gala with an opera company and a gig singing the National Anthem at a major sports venue coming up around the corner. I hate you too.
... I just had an elderly client on the phone. He kept calling me “ma’am” and at one point he said I “sure had a purdy voice.”
I thought to myself, “Well, I could say my name and make this INFINITELY more awkward, or just take care of any questions and let him go.” I chose the latter. But people are sure going to be puzzled if he calls again and asks for the ‘lady with the purdy voice.’
@WTFE Your comment caused 2016 to give Carrie Fisher a heart attack 
I'm a total atheist, but if I weren't, right now I'd say David Bowie is coordinating the most bitching concert of the last century, featuring virtually fucking everybody.
Stop it, 2016. Seriously.
Can we check just in case and see if some talent agent in Hollywood hasn't accidentally grabbed the Death Notebook and has been copying her rolodex onto it? That's the only explanation I have for 2016.
I like the new HR director. She introduced herself as "(name) Stark. Tony's cousin."
@Ganymede I'm playing it on the PC. But honestly, my biggest issue is with the story, the way the story is told, the shamefully restricted relationship choices for gay players, and the lack of polish and appearance are only secondary issues to me. I don't care if they make the game look prettier and more polished if it's still the same narrative shit sandwich, if you catch my drift.
Wait, I'm not in the long-winded faction?
Note to self: Start telling "Back in St. Olaf..." stories.