Comments on: The Natural and the Supernatural http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12708 asim Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:09:50 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12708 i am a firm believer in man. i am a firm believer in science, i am a firm believer in religion and i am a firm believer in reason. i believe that all of them exist to seek the truth and elevate mankind. if you believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive then that is a subjective assertion on your part. i am not so obstinate and thick brained as to completely rule out everything that cannot solely be proved by scientific knowledge we have accumulated thus far and this does not mean that i believe in blind faith. i am always ready for a debate but my main aim is not to win by being obstinately bound up with my own views and ideas. my aim is to reach the truth by accepting the new and valuable ideas that agree with my reason and common sense. man's intellect is ever expanding and i seek to expand mine at all times. here is a quote by one of the greatest scientist that ever lived; Albert Einstein himself said- religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. Vivekananda according to me has presented religion in its true light. i completely agree with his insights and to me they are ever expanding. i have tried to explain my thoughts as best as i can in this limited space. if you or anyone else want to know more then i wholeheartedly recommend the works and writings of Vivekananda and if not then that is your own choice. i never impose, i only seek to present his ideas to everyone. i always stand by the statement of Buddha- believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. i am a firm believer in man.
i am a firm believer in science, i am a firm believer in religion and i am a firm believer in reason. i believe that all of them exist to seek the truth and elevate mankind.
if you believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive then that is a subjective assertion on your part.
i am not so obstinate and thick brained as to completely rule out everything that cannot solely be proved by scientific knowledge we have accumulated thus far and this does not mean that i believe in blind faith.
i am always ready for a debate but my main aim is not to win by being obstinately bound up with my own views and ideas. my aim is to reach the truth by accepting the new and valuable ideas that agree with my reason and common sense. man’s intellect is ever expanding and i seek to expand mine at all times. here is a quote by one of the greatest scientist that ever lived; Albert Einstein himself said- religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame.
Vivekananda according to me has presented religion in its true light. i completely agree with his insights and to me they are ever expanding.
i have tried to explain my thoughts as best as i can in this limited space. if you or anyone else want to know more then i wholeheartedly recommend the works and writings of Vivekananda and if not then that is your own choice. i never impose, i only seek to present his ideas to everyone.
i always stand by the statement of Buddha- believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12439 Tim Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:17:36 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12439 "in life it is not necessarily important to be strong but what is important is to feel strong. and i will do whatever it takes to feel that way. i am not on this earth to win debates or anything. i am here to live." Wrong, but at least you admit that you know what you are saying is crap. You say it just to keep up an illusion. If you do not grow food in a farm because you did not work hard enough, but you feel like you worked hard enough, guess what? You don't eat. You cannot live without reason, without being "strong" as you put it. You don't care to win a debate? That means you don't care to be right, which means you do not care what is right, which makes me wonder why you debate at all! If you want to go through life lobotomized, fine, but stop recruiting. “in life it is not necessarily important to be strong but what is important is to feel strong. and i will do whatever it takes to feel that way. i am not on this earth to win debates or anything. i am here to live.”

Wrong, but at least you admit that you know what you are saying is crap. You say it just to keep up an illusion. If you do not grow food in a farm because you did not work hard enough, but you feel like you worked hard enough, guess what? You don’t eat. You cannot live without reason, without being “strong” as you put it. You don’t care to win a debate? That means you don’t care to be right, which means you do not care what is right, which makes me wonder why you debate at all! If you want to go through life lobotomized, fine, but stop recruiting.

]]> By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12112 asim Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:54:52 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12112 in life it is not necessarily important to be strong but what is important is to feel strong. and i will do whatever it takes to feel that way. i am not on this earth to win debates or anything. i am here to live. in life it is not necessarily important to be strong but what is important is to feel strong. and i will do whatever it takes to feel that way. i am not on this earth to win debates or anything. i am here to live.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12067 Tim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:39:23 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12067 You are confusing reason with risk. You could not understand that riding your bike in the rain at 80 mph is risky without the ability to discriminate between different behaviors and their consequences. Now I could go the easy route and point to a parallel activity that would entail risk (which is what you mean when you say unreasonable which does not describe reason, but a common saying about what is 'reasonable' which translates in our lexicon to mean 'within a range of probability') such as "well then, if you like riding your bike that fast in the rain then try driving drunk down side streets for a real thrill." However, I get the feeling that consciously or unconsciously that sort of red herring is what you want me to go chasing after. What you have done is take a word that describes a concept and then by misusing the word you hope to destroy the concept. By using 'reason' on one hand to say the thoughtful discrimination between different things and on the other hand using the word 'reason' to describe 'risk' you are attempting to remove the negative connotations associated with me saying that you are wrong from the debate. You are hoping that by attaching my reaction to a scapegoat of language confusion and sending that goat away you can maintain your position by changing the meaning of the word 'reason' and therefore with it make the CONCEPT of reason mean the concept of risk. This debate tactic is a subtle and nasty confusion that needs to be taken head on. As a 'P.S.' though let me say that if you are looking for meaning by means of risking your life, then I think that your current method of finding meaning outside of reason may be in immediate need of re-examination. You are confusing reason with risk. You could not understand that riding your bike in the rain at 80 mph is risky without the ability to discriminate between different behaviors and their consequences. Now I could go the easy route and point to a parallel activity that would entail risk (which is what you mean when you say unreasonable which does not describe reason, but a common saying about what is ‘reasonable’ which translates in our lexicon to mean ‘within a range of probability’) such as “well then, if you like riding your bike that fast in the rain then try driving drunk down side streets for a real thrill.” However, I get the feeling that consciously or unconsciously that sort of red herring is what you want me to go chasing after.

What you have done is take a word that describes a concept and then by misusing the word you hope to destroy the concept. By using ‘reason’ on one hand to say the thoughtful discrimination between different things and on the other hand using the word ‘reason’ to describe ‘risk’ you are attempting to remove the negative connotations associated with me saying that you are wrong from the debate. You are hoping that by attaching my reaction to a scapegoat of language confusion and sending that goat away you can maintain your position by changing the meaning of the word ‘reason’ and therefore with it make the CONCEPT of reason mean the concept of risk. This debate tactic is a subtle and nasty confusion that needs to be taken head on.

As a ‘P.S.’ though let me say that if you are looking for meaning by means of risking your life, then I think that your current method of finding meaning outside of reason may be in immediate need of re-examination.

]]> By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12066 asim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:57:19 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12066 oh no. you completely mistook all my statements. the experiment was just fine. the deficiency i talked about was that the amino acids as well as other organic compounds that were formed during the process were very difficult to link together to form dna or simple rna strands. plus there can be more than one set of conditions that can give rise to a desired result. it would only be speculative to pick one. further you completely mistook my philosophical statement by taking it too literally. it has got nothing to do with belief in faith or doubting reason. let me just give you an example. it was raining today and i was riding my bike in it at 80 miles an hour! reason says that i should not do it. the road is slippery, friction is less, its dangerous to say the least! and i have done it many times! call me a junkie or anything but that was the most i felt alive. i know you can very well explain the cause of my thrill, even rationally enough but you can not really feel the way i did if you are not the one on the bike! just like you can't exactly describe how it would feel to be standing at the top of Mount Everest. I went against reason and got my thrill. i know that this does not mean there is anything wrong with reason and i am not even trying to insinuate that. reason is perfectly right. but sometimes the thrill and the feeling of being really alive comes when we go against its dictates. this is what i was trying to say. perhaps i will have to pay for it sometimes.ha ha. but i will just take my chances. oh no. you completely mistook all my statements. the experiment was just fine. the deficiency i talked about was that the amino acids as well as other organic compounds that were formed during the process were very difficult to link together to form dna or simple rna strands. plus there can be more than one set of conditions that can give rise to a desired result. it would only be speculative to pick one.
further you completely mistook my philosophical statement by taking it too literally. it has got nothing to do with belief in faith or doubting reason. let me just give you an example. it was raining today and i was riding my bike in it at 80 miles an hour! reason says that i should not do it. the road is slippery, friction is less, its dangerous to say the least! and i have done it many times! call me a junkie or anything but that was the most i felt alive. i know you can very well explain the cause of my thrill, even rationally enough but you can not really feel the way i did if you are not the one on the bike! just like you can’t exactly describe how it would feel to be standing at the top of Mount Everest. I went against reason and got my thrill. i know that this does not mean there is anything wrong with reason and i am not even trying to insinuate that. reason is perfectly right. but sometimes the thrill and the feeling of being really alive comes when we go against its dictates. this is what i was trying to say.
perhaps i will have to pay for it sometimes.ha ha. but i will just take my chances.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12065 Tim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:16:15 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12065 Deficiency? You don't mean with the experiment, do you? I'll simply assume that you mean that the experiment didn't create life (which was not the purpose of the experiment). The purpose of the experiment was to simulate a hypothetical early Earth atmosphere and to see what would happen. The experiment gave proof of concept that organic material can arise from inorganic material. Now we simply have to continue changing the variables until we hit upon a combination of conditions that can produce a self-replicating single celled organism. "if we admit that life could be ruled by reason then the possibility of living gets extinguished." Wow! Forget the previous books, you need to read "Atlas Shrugged." Until then, I'll assume that you didn't mean that statement to be as offensive as it is. Offensiveness aside, that statement is a confession of, well there is no nice way to put it, stupidity. You are admitting that you are unreasonable, that you do not believe that reason is a way to understand the world and life, and that the only way to give life any meaning is through lobotomized incoherence. How can you possibly gain meaning without reason? Of course your disclaimer says it all, "don’t analyze them, just try to observe them in a practical and simple light" Don't think, just obey. Faith is the surrender of the mind, it is the surrender of reason, it is the surrender of everything that allows us to understand life and everything that makes life worth living. Deficiency? You don’t mean with the experiment, do you? I’ll simply assume that you mean that the experiment didn’t create life (which was not the purpose of the experiment). The purpose of the experiment was to simulate a hypothetical early Earth atmosphere and to see what would happen. The experiment gave proof of concept that organic material can arise from inorganic material. Now we simply have to continue changing the variables until we hit upon a combination of conditions that can produce a self-replicating single celled organism.

“if we admit that life could be ruled by reason then the possibility of living gets extinguished.”

Wow! Forget the previous books, you need to read “Atlas Shrugged.” Until then, I’ll assume that you didn’t mean that statement to be as offensive as it is.

Offensiveness aside, that statement is a confession of, well there is no nice way to put it, stupidity. You are admitting that you are unreasonable, that you do not believe that reason is a way to understand the world and life, and that the only way to give life any meaning is through lobotomized incoherence. How can you possibly gain meaning without reason? Of course your disclaimer says it all,

“don’t analyze them, just try to observe them in a practical and simple light”

Don’t think, just obey.

Faith is the surrender of the mind, it is the surrender of reason, it is the surrender of everything that allows us to understand life and everything that makes life worth living.

]]> By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12062 asim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:07:24 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12062 our discussions have been plenty and i have enjoyed them thoroughly. i thank you for your valuable insights. alas i leave you with a few words i greatly admire. don't analyze them, just try to observe them in a practical and simple light- if we admit that life could be ruled by reason then the possibility of living gets extinguished. our discussions have been plenty and i have enjoyed them thoroughly. i thank you for your valuable insights. alas i leave you with a few words i greatly admire. don’t analyze them, just try to observe them in a practical and simple light- if we admit that life could be ruled by reason then the possibility of living gets extinguished.

]]> By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12061 asim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:42:54 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12061 i have read the miller uray experiment before. the best one so far i agree. but it has its deficiencies none the less. i have read the miller uray experiment before. the best one so far i agree. but it has its deficiencies none the less.

]]> By: asim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12060 asim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:40:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12060 you are absolutely right tmac57 that waiting for godot is a play. absurdist play to be precise in literary terms. i am not presuming anything about you, how can i when i hardly know you. i recommended the book not because it contains any underlying agenda or something but because it can be interpreted in a vast number of ways. some have called it absurdist as is the common notion while some have called it realistic as is less commonly known. there are many more interpretations that have been put forth. beckett himself opined in an interview that all he had to say was already in the play. most people think that the play only means what one can observe on the face of it as you also have pointed out. my point is that we must keep our minds open to all possibilities. life itself must be looked at from all the angles no matter how absurd to fully access the the magnitude of its extent. you are absolutely right tmac57 that waiting for godot is a play. absurdist play to be precise in literary terms. i am not presuming anything about you, how can i when i hardly know you. i recommended the book not because it contains any underlying agenda or something but because it can be interpreted in a vast number of ways. some have called it absurdist as is the common notion while some have called it realistic as is less commonly known. there are many more interpretations that have been put forth. beckett himself opined in an interview that all he had to say was already in the play. most people think that the play only means what one can observe on the face of it as you also have pointed out. my point is that we must keep our minds open to all possibilities. life itself must be looked at from all the angles no matter how absurd to fully access the the magnitude of its extent.

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/11/the-natural-and-the-supernatural/#comment-12049 Tim Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:55:45 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=3828#comment-12049 A man who asks for evidence is a man I can get along with. I do hope you enjoy the book. As for the origins of life, the best single experiment I can reference is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Uray_experiment A man who asks for evidence is a man I can get along with. I do hope you enjoy the book.

As for the origins of life, the best single experiment I can reference is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Uray_experiment

]]>