Why does Lawrence Krauss insist on making us look like retar

>>8263706
Because he's religious.

This obnoxious dumb maggot of a kraut is the only person who's more annoying than Nigrasse tyson. In conferences it's cringeworthy to watch him fail to string two sentences together without constantly stuttering and making snarky remarks to the people asking questions.

>>8263716
The thing that annoys me is he constantly gets into philosophical debates, but doesn't actually understand them, and you can even feel his opponents cringing...

>>8263706
The real question is, does he need to be beaten up a bit? Is this what best needs to happen?

File: Lawrence_Krauss_7-14-2012.jpg (158KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 800x1200px

>>8263706
is he a manlet?

>>8263809
Wow, what the fuck. There are places on Earth that are UNDERNEATH ME. The land DOWN UNDER.

I always mapped as relative positions on a sphere, and once something reached the core, it was no longer "under", but this need not be the case.

Australia is under.

BAHAHAHA SCIENTISTS BTFOd, CAN'T EVEN THINK PROPERLY PHILOSOPHERS EASILY TAKE OUT SCIENTISTS AND I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS IN REAL LIFE WITH MY VERY MINIMAL PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE

>>8263809
he forgot a few letter when writing syndrome

>>8263706
He doesn't need to. Anyone watching these videos are retards.

>>8263706
Because he's honest.

File: 6eqWTIw.gif (1003KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 220x220px

>>8263716
being this mad xD

go choke on your bile xD

>>8263706
I disagree with the man, but he has the balls to debate muslims about the existence of God. He may be dumb, but he's got guts, and guts is enough.

>>8263706
oh thats actually very interesting, i dont think i saw that one!

>>8263706
Terribly sorry, but is this video about using observations of reality to disprove a necessarily metaphysical possibility of reality?

Because I don't think that's going to work out that well for you.

>>8263716

I dunno about the rest of your post but this part is very true.

>and making snarky remarks to the people asking questions.

Him and Brian Greene are both pretty bad. They get insanely butthurt when someone disagrees with or questions them.

>>8265339

>metaphysical

>reality

pick one.

>>8263706
How can a man like Lawrence who has a PhD be such a retard? Wtf

>>8263768
And yet he wins every single of the debates, do you even watch the full debates or do you just quit in anger because you can't prove Lawrence wrong?

>>8265339
>hurr god is metaphysical
Good, then he's irrelevant
>no, but he can intervene in our universe
Good, then he's not entirely metaphysical, and Krauss is right

the man on the left non-ironically tries to argue that the laws of the universe are not universal

/sci/ will defend them because they got brainwashed by /pol/ to hate on atheism

>>8267167
>I never saw him losing a debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlaLVOnwBIs

>>8267213
Skip to the end of the video, when they vote: Krauss won.

>>8267167
>Did you know why the LHC was built in Europe and not Texas?

Because the money was stupidly wasted by the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

>Converting more people to atheism is great.

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here kid.

>>8267170
Atheism has been setting science and humanity back since the turn of the 19th century. You can't pin the hate on /pol/

>>8267480
>/pol/ apologist
>religious apologist
back to /pol/

>>8267482
fucking evangelists

my professor couldn't teach evolution because evangelists protested the curriculum

>>8267163
>hurr the programmer is non-data
Good, then he's irrelevant
>no, but he can intervene in our program
Good, then he's not entirely non-data

An AI believing in a programmer make as much sense as an AI believing in a magical spaghetti.jpeg creating new data. So illogical.

>>8267484
>everyone with opinions different than mine is a /pol/fag
>I demand an echo chamber of my own opinions!

>>8263706
>making us look like retards
What do you mean by "us", retard?

>>8267482
>Thinks Europe is atheist
>Can't tell the difference between American Protestantism, Christianity, and all of religion.

>>>/reddit/atheism is that way.

File: 1469865343939.png (21KB, 453x459px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 453x459px

>>8267480

>>8267480
dance some more, W

>>8267484
Half of pol are atheists you dumb mouthbreather SJWtard. Fuck off from 4chan already

>>8267480
>Atheism has been setting science and humanity back since the turn of the 19th century. You can't pin the hate on /pol/

lolwut?

This has got to be a troll. No one can seriously believe that.

/How/ would "atheism" hold back science? I don't even...

>>8267733
Atheists in China went through their universities and killed all their professors.

>>8267733
>/How/ would "atheism" hold back science? I don't even...

For starters, fedoras like you set back evolutionary theory a century by holding on to Darwinian evolution as infallible gospel.

File: lawrence-krauss-science-fanatic-b-r[1].jpg (163KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x600px

Reminder that Krauss supports incest :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdMZKl-3AI

>>8268084
No he doesn't you idiot.
He says the definition is too simple.
Cloning and stem cell therapy can get in the way of simplistic legislation, leading to avoidable sickness and even death.

>>8268146
>sandnigger : whats so wrong about incest ?
>kraut : it's not clear to me that it's wrong
Which means he's not opposing to that idea, which means he's okay with it.
Makes sense how much he looks inbred.

>>8268084
This is a perfect nutshell of the opposing sides.

What the religious of course don't see is that
- Krauss doesn't accept "why is it wrong? It just IS" (or it's gross!") as a good argument
- would accept a good argument if somebody would present him with one
- doesn't at all think that anybody should actually fuck their siblings
- clearly doesn't approve of what incest has, historically, been, and of the form of incest the religious are thinking of here (tribal chief fucking his daughter)

On the other hand, Krauss doesn't see how he comes across to them. He completely misses that they are not seeing this.

>>8268156
If this was a joke: you've successfully Poe's Law'd me.

>>8268176
read theology of the body

>>8268190
Why should I do that?

>>8268176
>>8268179
>incest apologetics
Go away Freud worshippers

>>8268179
If you asked me whats wrong with murder and I said I'm not sure if it is, it means I'm not convinced that murder is wrong and I wouldn't mind murder.
Which would be a sick ass thing to say, just like trying to justify incest.

>>8268237
>If you asked me whats wrong with murder and I said I'm not sure if it is, it means I'm not convinced that murder is wrong
Yes.
>and I wouldn't mind murder.
No.

"Would you like to have sex with my sibling?"
You don't know. Doesn't mean you want it, or you don't want it; it means you don't know.

Typically theist fallacies

>>8268240
Well, not opposing murder is enough to enable it. You can see murder going on and you wouldn't interfere because you're not sure if the killer should or should not be killing the victim.
Also I'm not a theist, I'm fedora as fuck.

>>8268084
hes saying there is no objective morality

File: incestman.jpg (67KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x400px

>>8268259
Sure it is. Lets see if we can get this meme rollin' ;^)

>>8268237
I definitely see your point, but logically, what is wrong with incest from a moral standpoint?

Murder is easily justified as wrong by almost any moral system. If life is sacred, murder is wrong. If freedom is a human right, murder is wrong because it takes away freedom. No one consents to being murdered. Murders typically cause more pain than pleasure, from a utilitarian standpoint. The list goes on: one can easily conclude that murder is wrong, no matter how you justify it.

Incest is trickier. As long as its consensual, and both parties are of age, I have no moral qualms with it. I still find it fucking disgusting and degenerate, but I have no right to force my opinions on others. At most, we can say that incest is bad because usually it is accompanied by pedophilia or rape. Even then incest isn't intrinsically bad in and of itself.

I'm not defending incest. But I have no real reason to be for or against it.

>>8268268
*slow claps*

*steps out of the shadows*

Heh... not bad, kid. Not bad at all. Your meme, I mean. It's not bad. A good first attempt. It's plenty dank... I can tell it's got some thought behind it... lots of quotable material...

But memeing isn't all sunshine and rainbows, kid. You're skilled... that much I can tell. But do you have what it takes to be a Memester? To join those esteemed meme ranks? To call yourself a member of the Ruseman's Corps? Memeing takes talent, that much is true. But more than that it takes heart. The world-class Memesters - I mean the big guys, like Johnny Hammersticks and Billy Kuahana - they're out there day and night, burning the midnight meme-oil, working tirelessly to craft that next big meme.

And you know what, kid? 99 times out of a hundred, that new meme fails. Someone dismisses it as bait, or says it's "tryhard," or ignores it as they copy/paste the latest shitpost copypasta dreamt up by those sorry excuses for cut-rate memers over at reddit. The Meme Game is rough, kid, and I don't just mean the one you just lost :^). It's a rough business, and for every artisan meme you craft in your meme bakery, some cocksucker at 9gag has a picture of a duck or some shit that a million different Johnny No-Names will attach a milion different captions to. Chin up, kid. Don't get all mopey on me. You've got skill. You've got talent. You just need to show your drive.

See you on the boards...

File: anigif_original-28825-1372079731-9[1].gif (621KB, 534x289px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 534x289px

>>8268295
I bet you didn't think I'd read all your post butt I did ;^)

My calculations say that the general bias against Krauss and his arrogance, his stupid shit eating grin combined with the word "incest" that adds a potential memetical vibe to it, the reinforced usage of it (meme spamming), my perpetual referral to Krauss as the incestman leading to mass curiosity among people to find out whats with krauss and incest, and this meme becoming a tool for people who dislike krauss to use against krauss fanboys in a strawman type of weapon makes it quite a decent candidate for a meme that will stick. Butt hey, even if it doesn't, I learned that making mistakes is part of the progress.

In the end, memes make the world go around ;^)
Hear it from the lord master memester of our time :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

>>8268237
>Which would be a sick ass thing to say
I wouldn't agree. Unfortunately the nature of the human species demands lethal force be used in certain situations. Killing can also be a net positive in the bigger picture, eventually.

I don't draw a real distinction between killing and murder. Your moral system is externally defined and ultimately based on wilful slavery, and not in a Nietzsche sort of way.

File: 1467654103674.jpg (64KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x459px

/pol/ has turned this board into a fucking pile of shit. I miss when it was just a few retards spamming "YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS".

>>8268836
>random /pol/ bitching
SJWtards spamming shitposts into random threads now ? Don't you have some BLM protest to attend to ?

>>8268841
>dropping SJW and BLM in one post

You forgot to say nu-male and cuck. Been posting in /sci/ since 2008, this year (election year) has been fucking hell for /sci/.

>>8267495
So we're either like an AI in a program or... we're not. I assume not since this is a simpler hypothesis and there is no evidence we were created by an intelligence. Simply claiming that we are like something does not show that we are like something.

>>8268877
Yeah i was so saddened when pol did 9/11 too. That pol rite ?

>>8263768
Basically this.
>>8267156
If you think he won, you don't actually understand what's being discussed.

>>8268892
If you think he lost you must be a brainwashed Christard

>>8268896
I'm an atheist, I'm just not a dumbass about it.

>>8267213
Oh really - he "lost" the debate where the question was "does Islam or atheism make more sense?"

You legitimately think he LOST the debate because the other individual proved the claim that Islam makes MORE sense than atheism. Really. Fucking kill yourself.

Krauss was a dick during that debate - and the audience was primarily Muslim, so of COURSE they sided with the sand nigger. At one point, Krauss called Mohammed a pedophile (which historically, he was). But this in no way means he "lost" the debate.

>>8268896
I have an urge to just proclaim people like this poster just be executed. They're so "in the way", and their bullshit is not confined to a vacuum.

The other alternative is to forcibly take control of the media and use their hollowed out shell to deploy a state run re-education program. Gradually change the cultural structures and social feedback loops at work, shift the dialogue, and as the content slowly changes people will be naturally led along a gradient of mind expansion. Structures will be put in place to keep it this way, and inhibit future (inevitable) degeneration.

Seriously, fuck you people.

>>8263706
How could william lane craig be such a fucking moron?

>>8268903
How could you "be a dumbass about atheism"? That's literally a contradictory statement.

>>8269046
Anon, please.

>>8268915
I can't help but empathise with you (despite my being atheist). Everyone has the right to freedom of religion and I think this anti-religion movement may be heavy-handed. I'm also not totally informed.

The biggest misunderstanding is the concept that
Will argues for an absolute moral definition.

1) There are multiple religions which diffuse an ultimate truth, god, or divinity.

2) Who wrote the ultimate truth? How and why is it special, better, or in more in line with modern morality?
All unanswered..

*side note
When asked the cliche chicken or egg dilemma, Will claims it as false, then immediately says the chicken came first..

>>8269066
I'm not religious either.
It's less that it's heavy handed, and more that it's delusional and incapable of insight, foresight, or just plain sight.

It lacks base awareness and is near strictly tribal.

>>8267757
I believe you mean "communists". The atheists that you're talking about are secular humanists. Totes different things.

>>8268237
Murder actually harms someone. Not all incest actually harms someone. That's the difference. It's not hard to imagine two consenting adults, in a sexual relationship, not in an abusive relationship, who just happen to be blood related.

>>8268915
>mad at someone who claims that religious people are wrong
What's your problem? That they're too mean? That they're too confident in their conclusions? Do you actually think that there is a god!?

>>8269079
Really? Your position is that there is not a single person on the planet who rightly believes that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a god belief, and who rightly believes that religions do great harm in the world, and who therefore justifaibility acts to reduce religion in the world in order to make the world into a better place?

I bet your one of those people who hate on SJWs too. Probably white, male, libertarian, too.

>>8269153
I think he's exagerating, but he's not mad at someone who thinks religious people are wrong, he's mad at someone whose first reaction to being told he's not grasping the nuances of the discussion is fully discarding nuance and going tribal

>>8269157
Meh.

>>8269156
>Your position is that[...]
No, and not remotely implied. That you think it is shows you're part of the problem.

If I hate on "SJWs", there are hard reasons for it that I can trace back to a (hopefully) universally meaningful basis, and can communicate the logical framework in full.

>>8269066
"New Atheism" and reddit atheism (which a lot of this board has, too) is rather terrible, yes.
But I still think anti-religion movements are a good thing. Challenging the status quo is heavy handed, whatever. Religious people believe all kinds of dumb shit and even the "moderate" ones can hinder progress something fierce.
>>8269162
Don't be a dumbass, tripfriend.

>>8269168
>"New Atheism" and reddit atheism (which a lot of this board has, too) is rather terrible, yes.
>But I still think anti-religion movements are a good thing. Challenging the status quo is heavy handed, whatever. Religious people believe all kinds of dumb shit and even the "moderate" ones can hinder progress something fierce.
I don't understand.

>>8269168
I'm all right with atheism but it's this across-the-board condemnation of religion that I find inappropriate.

>>8269176
Condemnation meaning...?
>>8269169
What do you not understand? How I can think that naive atheism is dumb while still supporting anti-religion movements that are backed by basically the same people?

>>8269176
It's the condemnation of historically religious ideas on the ironic basis of blind faith, that I don't like. Since this is a Krauss thread, the Universe From Nothing is an example of this.

Is it really so awful that the machinery of the universe might have something comparable to our idea of a creator? Is it really so awful to entertain the notion that perhaps humans and other species were engineered by an advanced species that came before us?

The lack of base curiosity stems from this anti-religion mindset.

>>8269182
>What do you not understand? How I can think that naive atheism is dumb while still supporting anti-religion movements that are backed by basically the same people?
I don't understand what difference you believe there is.

>>8269176
Why? Do you believe it's always incorrect to correct someone else concerning a simple scientific factual matter?

>>8269184
>The lack of base curiosity stems from this anti-religion mindset.
How much woo do you believe? Are you similarly upset by debunkers who take on bigfoot, acupuncture, and the like?

>>8269185
>I don't understand what difference you believe there is.
Basically none, as said. I find the arguments and figureheads of new/internet atheism to be fucking awful but I think they are a net positive on the big scheme of things.

>>8269188
Debunkers are almost universally scientifically and epistemologically unfounded garbage, so I don't pay much attention to them other than for the goal of reverse engineering why their mind moved through the states it did.

I'm going to ignore your uninspired cheap strawman and provide my definition of "knowledge". It will give you what you seem to want to know.

Knowledge is a framework of relative truths wherein all elements are inherently uncertain and therefore weighted by apparent probability, while controlling for known and known possible unknown sources of error. This informs and feeds into heuristics iterated on over time.

>>8269185
There's nothing wrong with correcting people on facts but religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion. On the flip side religious people shouldn't push their agendas on people based on their faith.

>>8269204
That was a legitimate question. Do you also dislike it when people correct other people over acupuncture, homeopathy, and the like? There is a widespread belief that acupuncture and homeopathy are effective. They are not. These people are wrong, and they are harming themself out of ignorance, and their mere existence encourages others to gain wrong beliefs and harm themselves. The morally correct thing to is to try to educate them as to the facts, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others.

>>8269206
>There's nothing wrong with correcting people on facts but religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion.
As a simple factual matter, almost all of them are. If you believe that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a belief in god, it almost necessarily follows that you also believe that religious people are ignorant - or irrational in some capacity.

>>8269206
>religious people shouldn't be considered ignorant just because of their religion.
But they are, though. Most of them don't read their fucking holy books, how are they even going to know about shit like the cosmological argument or whatever, and the counterarguments for said positions.

Also a lot of them ARE factually wrong on a huge number of grounds, even within their own belief systems.

>>8269210
>That was a legitimate question.
It's definitely legitimate, but it's not relevant.

I don't have much of an opinion on acupuncture beyond that I tried it once and had a bit of a trippy experience, but it otherwise did little for my chronic pain. Didn't like the feeling otherwise, not certain its spectrum of actions on a hard mechanical level.

Don't know anything about homeopathy.

I've actually had extensive experience with people who have the psychological tendencies and belief systems you're getting at. So I'm a bit dulled to it, and don't care much about ripple effects and edge cases, unless it's markedly harmful in a primary sense.

>>8269224
You not caring is one thing. You taking a proverbial shit on people who care, like me, when they're trying to make the world into a better place, that's another.

>>8269210
Giving religious people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are only "irrational in some capacity": is the total abolition of religion really warranted?
Can religion not exist in a world governed by scientific thinking?

>>8269220
Well then it seems to me that the fight is really against ignorance and lack of education rather than religion.

>>8269225
>when they're trying to make the world into a better place
They might believe they are, but they really aren't. They're a myopic maladapted mess, and net out as in the way of people who want to get anything done. People like me that have to constantly fight against the false fruits of your sloppy and dim witted labor.

>>8269228
>Giving religious people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are only "irrational in some capacity": is the total abolition of religion really warranted?

One. I care about the truth. Whether or not something is harmful is irrelevant to whether it's true.

Two. I especially care when it's harmful. The religious mindset is sustained only by ignorance, irrationality, and lack of critical thinking, which is greatly damaging to our civil society, plus the manifest harms visited upon everyone in society. The lack of proper critical thinking teachings in schools is especially harmful.

>>8269231
>Well then it seems to me that the fight is really against ignorance and lack of education rather than religion.
They're one and the same, almost. Religion can only survive in ignorance, irrationality, and in the vacuum of critical thinking.

>>8269233
>They might believe they are, but they really aren't. They're a myopic maladapted mess, and net out as in the way of people who want to get anything done. People like me that have to constantly fight against the false fruits of your sloppy and dim witted labor.
Simply disagreed. I proudly identify as SJW, and based on what you've said thus far, apparently you are also my enemy.

>>8269234
>Simply disagreed. I proudly identify as SJW, and based on what you've said thus far, apparently you are also my enemy.
That's alright. For now people like me are fading out, so it's not even rightly framed as a fight. The subset of the population with realistic insight and foresight will always exist in some capacity, and perhaps the cycle will loop back and our mindset will rise again. For now, delusion rules and will be enforced by social engineering. All you need to get your way is to invoke "bigotry", and then they are upon you.

>>8269240
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to begin. Are you one of those slymepit people who believe that all prominent feminists are professional victims, just seeking attention? Are you one of those people who use "social justice warrior" and "white knighting" as negative pejoratives?

>>8269245
>Do you [macro blanket statement]
Probably all of these questions can be universally answered as "no".

>who use "social justice warrior" and "white knighting"
I don't use these terms internally or externally.

>>8269234
>irrationality, and in the vacuum of critical thinking.
come on now

File: atheists.png (17KB, 373x330px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 373x330px

>>8269254
I've described my position, and I've been getting you to describe your position. You are thusfar just taking a piss on me, without even describing what faults you have with me, in any sort of specific or actionable way. Your complaints have been vague, nebulous, and if this continues, I'll start to become convinced that my initial assessment of you was correct.

>>8269255
What?

>>8269234
So do you believe that freedom of religion should be revoked as a basic human right and everyone must have a belief system grounded in science?
Because that seems kind of ridiculous to me.

File: free_speech.png (52KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 566x577px

>>8269260
Pic related.

>>8269258
>What?
There are solid, rational, analytic defenses of a God.

>>8269266
>There are solid, rational, analytic defenses of a God.
No, there are not. Thus, I now conclude that you are ignorant or irrational.

If you want, hit me with your best shot. Is it going to be some nebulous first-cause god argument? Because no one gives a shit about those. Anyone who advances those in place of an argument for the Christian god, or Muslim god, etc., is not being intellectually honest. The existence of some mere god that may or may not do anything is irrelevant, untestable, and dare I say cognitively meaningless in the sense of the logical positivist. It doesn't matter in any way.

>>8269258
>I've described my position
Not meaningfully so, no.

I'm just getting drunk on kava and letting you lead the conversation, having a strictly reaction-based role. Normally I'd be talking at you and gradually forcing you into a dialogue where you begin to communicate on my terms, and in my language, by disallowing endeavors into angles I don't care about.

I'm apathetic and greatly weakened though. So it's largely up to you. Ask a question, get an answer. Ask an abstract question, get an abstract answer. Ask a vague macro question, get a vague macro answer. Ask a specific question, get a specific answer.

That's how it works. How this pans out is entirely your problem. Don't blame me when you're a dork who can't figure out how to get what they want.

>>8269234
The part of the brain that is used in repentance and remorse is the same for working memory and critical thinking. Religions that don't have repentance as a Major part of it are, therefore dumb, yet that is not the case of Christianity: repentance is the core of Christianity.

>>8269265
I'm ok with this, thanks for the insight.

>>8269271
Uhh, no. I already asked a question, and you haven't answered. Again, what is your position, and how is it different than mine?

Again, for clarity, I am a secular humanist atheist, in the vein of people like Aronra, PZ Myers, Matt Dillahunty. I believe that all religions are factually wrong, and I believe that all religions are harmful to society because they promote a lack of critical thinking, in addition to the particular noxious beliefs like anti-sex, anti-contraception, ant-gay, anti-stem sex research, anti-abortion, anti-blasphemy, etc.

>>8269275
I have no idea what point that you are trying to make.

>>8269280
>Again, what is your position, and how is it different than mine?
I've kind of forgotten what we were talking about, and our general context here.

Anyway. I'm not fond of organized religion and think people need to be wary of placing faith in what the confuse for "science" as well, else it is just another organized religion. It will take on the same motivational and control structures, and it already has the same hierarchical layout and way of communicating to the public. It also depends on your definition of religion.

Humans are machines. Most people realize this on some level, but fail to grasp the broader implications. You need to be realistic about what the overall machine can be made to be and become, and work towards cultural structures and social feedback loops that support this. On an individual level you need to realize your capacity to influence your environment is extremely limited, and be wary of becoming too invested to see your own flaws and self imposed delusions.

>>8269293
So, what is your problem with people like me who take a confrontationalist, firebrand, approach with religious people, aka when, in proper venues, we tell religious people that they're wrong, and their beliefs cause them to do bad things, and their lack of critical thinking causes them to do bad things, and they support a culture where other people also have bad beliefs and bad critical thinking.

Remember, for the most part, there is no such thing as atheists who go door to door to tell people that they're wrong about religion. We don't go to churches and disrupt or protest.

>>8269316
I've actually been mostly curious what led you to believe I have a problem with you.

Note that I very likely do, I just want to know what you have in mind when you say these things.

>>8269322
Hard to tell with so many anons in the thread. I don't know. I was also trying to figure that out. It's hard to know whom I'm talking to.

>>8269324
Not him but I kinda wonder why not all boards have IDs

>>8269324
Either way, the main problem I have is in overcorrection, or the potentiation and coddling of arrogant myopia. These are traits that need to either be stomped out, or fizzle out on their own as an individual grows and encounters a wider spectrum of ideas (which lend them the means for deeper self evaluation as they contrast themselves to a wider range of contexts and topic), but instead we have echo chambers and whole movements forming that celebrate and overexpress these traits and behaviors.

The result is a tribal one, and it plays on all of our worst human tendencies causing people to get stuck where they should have moved on. This is a natural consequence of the dual nature of the internet.

These people tend to come to ultimately live on mount stupid, they're readily made pawns because they're susceptible to the natural separation into binary tribes whenever something becomes a controversial "thing", and it generally prevents insightful or meaningful dialogue within a society. It leads to poor risk assessment, an inability to see the big picture, and condemns us to endlessly ride the waves of fuck ups as we barrel down a long road of false progress where the scenery is always the same. It's inefficient, it costs lives, it reduces quality of life for everyone, and bars us from ever achieving the ideal at any given instant, despite having the means all along. I hate always fighting with both sides, and it disgusts me.

>>8269279
>>8269260
>>8269231
>>8269228
>>8269206
>>8269176
>>8269066

>>8269324
These were all me if that helps. I didn't post anything else.

>>8268836
Honest question here. What does science know about consciousness? I've been thinking about mortality a lot lately.

>>8269401
Not a whole lot, honestly. Prevailing thought at the moment is that it arises from the brain, with all that entails.

Hard problem of consciousness is still hard, qualia are a bitch, etc

>>8269430
>Hard problem of consciousness is still hard
More like "insurmountable". Which is something philosophers could have told you 2000 years ago. Though Descartes really brought it to the forefront and formalized it.

>>8263716
>>8263768
He's cool when talking about physics, but the constant MUH ATHEISM in other discussions gets a little fucking obnoxious.

>>8269500
Basically every popular atheist scientist. Their fuckups with philosophy in particular are just incredible

>>8265356
Nice projection.

>>8267167
>winning the crowd
>science
get the fuck out

>>8269401
>>8269430
>>8269451
We know everything and nothing. It's something that arises from neuronal connections, that's the trivial part. Then there's the non-trivial part of actually mapping/modeling/figuring out how all these billion neurons actually work together.

>>8269668
Read a fucking book. Plenty have 'mapped' it out. This board is cancer. Bunch of kids pretending they know shit.

>>8269668
I think the brain resembles a state machine. The most readily addressable question is if there's no change in state electrically, is there still consciousness. One would think not, but new transcranial magnetic stimulation tests could show what happens when certain clusters of nerves are prevented from building sufficient membrane potential to fire.

>>8269626
He's not doing science when he debates

He's changing the PUBLIC OPINION

YOU KNOW, THE DAMN THING THAT GIVES BRAINLET SCIENTISTS LIKE YOU FUNDING

>>8269505
They don't fuck up anything. They win all the debates.

Philosophy is not above science. Most philosophers still try to explain the universe with classical mechanics. THEIR fuck ups are incredible.

>>8269703
>They don't fuck up anything.
Dawkins counterarguments for Aquinas shit is fucking laughable, like I can't believe he did anything past skim Aquinas wikipedia page, if even that. He recognized he didn't know what episttemology meant. He thinks philosophers not predicting Darwin is an indictment of philosophy.

Then Harris. Moral realism and consequentialism are true because they're true, free will don't real because I sidestep compatibilism like a motherfucker, etc

On the debate thing, while I'll admit that I haven't watched it myself, it's aparently rather agreed upon that WLC won the debate against Dawkins, he even had to fucking talk down to him

The fact they're the figureheads of this atheism surge is idiotic as fuck

>>8269701
good, at least you admit he's not a real scientist

>>8269710
>free will don't real because I sidestep compatibilism like a motherfucker, etc
Isn't that mostly a semantic discussion? Hard to see how free will arises when ultimately everything arises from interactions between fundamental particles bound by certain laws.

>>8269716
It's about what concept of free will remains in a deterministic system and if it's enough to reasonably justify moral blameworthiness

It can sound like semantics but these discussions need nuance and properly defined terms to get at something deeper

>>8269720
>It's about what concept of free will remains in a deterministic system and if it's enough to reasonably justify moral blameworthiness
That makes sense.

krauss gets a lot of shit and hes kind of faggy but most of the time hes totally on point

>>8269750
Name one instance he's been "totally on point".

>>8269751
Incest isn't morally wrong.

>>8269753
That's a bit high level and abstract, but I'll go with it on a superficial level.

>>8269751
he often talks about how educating women in developing countries is the best way to improve quality of life because the women naturally pass knowledge onto their children.

>>8269755
He was totally wrong about that. Unless you like to see inbred people around or something.

>>8269712
He is a scientist. He's not practicing science when he debates though. He's got a PhD from MIT and he works on theoretical physics. He has done some good contributions.

>>8269710
>Harris
not a scientist, so irrelevant

>counterarguments for Aquinas shit is fucking laughable
Nope, Aquinas got BTFO

>WLC won the debate against Dawkins
He lost the vote.

WLC is an idiot who tries to argue that the laws of physics are not universal, non-ironically.

>>8269766
Taking theoretical physics courses only to claim a superficial ranking to inflate your unwarranted personal opinions about anything else in discussions is NOT being a scientist. Otherwise he would actually contribute something to science and his book wouldn't just be citations and interpretations of other peoples works.

>>8269771
He does contribute. He has contributed to Nobel prize winning enterprises.

>>8269764

You misunderstand. He didn't say it was a good idea to fuck your sister, hes merely saying there is no intrinsic morality in humans. So incest isn't really good or bad, same with murdering raping or stealing.
Our ability for rational thought is what gives us the ability to reason. It's not reasonable to go around killing people. It's not reasonable to copulate with family members and introduce no new fresh genetic material and threaten survival of offspring.

>>8269769
>Nope, Aquinas got BTFO
You don't understand Aquinas then
His arguments have been teared apart, but not by Dawkins, he sucks dick at philosophy
I get why he tries, I really do, but he should stick to the more empirical shit
>WLC is an idiot
I don't disagree, but that's what makes matters worse

>>8269773
so constructivism in a more retarded way

>>8269773
>ISIS dude : whats so wrong about incest ?
>L. Krauss : it's not clear to me that it's wrong
No matter how hard you try to twist it, he verbally claimed that he doesn't find incest wrong. You can say a bunch of generalizing stuff about why he labelled it not wrong under the absolute morals not existing or whatever but in the end he was asked about incest and he didn't say it was wrong.

Krauss literally doesn't think incest is bad. Thats probably why he looks inbred :^)

>>8269776
>le "you just don't understand it"
philosophers' favorite meme

he understood just right and tore it apart

philosophy is not complicated, no matter how much philosophers try to delude themselves

>>8269781
Incest is *not* wrong as long as you don't have children

>>8269782
>philosophy is not complicated
That makes Dawkins even more of a dumbass then.

>>8269778
Constructivism is just reductionism that ignores scale.

>>8269782
Every single resource saying that Dawkins didn't understand Aquinas comes from ultra-Catholic sources, kek, he sure as hell caused some salt among Christfags

>>8269781
The "ISIS" dude he was debating was trying to break him down. It's what he does. His whole jerk off about inductive vs deductive reasoning was just a ploy to turn the audience (who were mostly muslim) against krauss.

>>8269783
>Incest is *not* wrong
You are a sick-ass person and you have sick-ass thoughts. I bet you don't think pedophilia is morally wrong if both have consent either.

>>8269789
What about incest with cousins?

>>8269792
A lower concentration of sick-assness but still dangerously sick-ass

>>8269787
They're mostly the only ones who still give a shit about Aquinas, since he already got pretty much destroyed.
Doesn't make Dawkins any more correct

Thomists should all be shot still

>>8269789
Pedophilia is wrong because children can't give meaningful consent by definition. You have to be an adult to give meaningful consent.

Incest between two consenting adults is not an issue.

>>8269795
Nah.
If I had a qt cousin and we were both into it, I'd have no issue with going further.

>>8269797
Sometimes scientists like Dawkins and Krauss dismiss ideas out of "common sense" instead of rigorously looking for the flaw in X axiom or Y conclusion.

Does that mean they are wrong? Nah. It just means they don't see the necessity to carefully find every hole in an argument that falls flat at the first glance.

>>8269798
So age of consent is what you say your reason to stop diddling kids. Some countries have very low age of consent, do you think you would diddle kids there ?

>>8269799
200% sick-ass O:<

File: 1471085682748.jpg (105KB, 400x345px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 400x345px

>>8269805
>age of consent

>>8269800
First off, that's retarded.

Secondly, Dawkins didn't just not study the arguments, he didn't study the arguments and then proceeded to try and counter them.

>>8269807
And did it accurately.

The flaws he points are the same flaws pointed out by people who stood down to the level of a retard like Aquinas to find the flaws in his obviously retarded arguments.

The arguments put forth by Aquinas are retarded at first glance, so Dawkins decided to ridicule them instead of respectfully looking for the flaw word by word.

>>8267495
That's actually a really good point that I haven't heard before. But in a sense, the AI still exists in the same reality as the programmer. It runs off physical hardware that exists in the same reality, at least. So, extrapolating the argument, the universe and our consciousness would have to exist as a result of metaphysical constructs which impacted physical reality, in the same way physical processors determine virtual reality. Weird to think about.

>>8269806
Kid diddler detected. in some middle eastern countries, they marry kids of age 6 with very older man to make a family.

So you can go there and practice your pedophilia since you have no moral objections and age of consent allows you to be a legal pedophile

>>8269807
Imagine if in mathematics, whenever we see some shitty paper that is obviously wrong, and it's obvious just looking at the big picture -- we went and tried to find the small flaw that led him astray. Nah. Your paper is shit, come back when you have a real argument.

>>8269811
Kids can't consent. The definition of an adult is universal, it doesn't depend on the country you are born.

Some societies (all of them religious, religion is cancer -- I thought religion would stop these immoral acts from happening? So much for their morals!) are fucked up, so what?

>>8269812
kek, and then he goes saying "NOBODY HAS PROVED ME WRONG, THEREFORE I AM RIGHT"

We have seen this in mathematics with some shitty papers claiming to be proofs for conjectures.

>>8269815
sooo what is the age of consent ? 20 ? 18 ? 16 ? 12 ? 10 ? 6 ?
And what makes you think an instutituon determines something subjective to be a "universal" thing ? growing up is a period of transition. Kids just don't evolve like pokemons and suddenly change into a grown person.

>>8269819
True, but in countries with rigid systems of education, the line is pretty clear. If you are still in highschool (or less), you are underage.

>>8269809
Not accurately at all, no.
>The arguments put forth by Aquinas are retarded at first glance, so Dawkins decided to ridicule them instead of respectfully looking for the flaw word by word.
The point is that he ridiculed them without having actually understood. Aquinas arguments don't hold up, but not for the reasons he thinks.

File: ILvlBZb[1].png (57KB, 1393x632px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1393x632px

>>8269822
Thats very vague and inconsistent. You are basing it on man-made laws which change all around the world. There's nothing set in stone. You can be a kid diddler in most of the countries legally even down to kids of age 9 apparently.

>>8269824
>just checked the so-called actual reasons they don't hold
>they are basically the same Dawkins postulated, just done in a respectful way

>>8269827
Age of consent doesn't mean what you think it means.

Now post the map of "age of adulthood"

>>8269828
Where did you check?

>>8269832
For Dawkins, his book

For the arguments, stackexchange

>>8269819
Obviously the idea of informed consent does not magically appear, and it's different for every individual, and for every individual, it's a slow and gradual process to grow up and become able to give consent. As a practical matter, the law picks some age as an approximation. What's your point?

>>8269830
>age of adulthood
Why ? Age of adulthood is not the age limit that you can diddle kids. A pedophile like you who have no objective morality don't need to check for adulthood, but only the age of consent.

>>8269836
>A pedophile like you who have no objective morality

there is no such thing as objective morality you dingus.

>>8269836
I literally said that you have to be an adult to give consent.

Age of consent is not what you think it is. You don't understand it.

>>8269837
Nice justification for you to be a rapist, murdering pedophile ;^)

>>8269838
>The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts
literally juts google it matey
it is the age where you diddle kiddles

>>8269836
If he really doesn't believe in objective morality that doesn't mean the only thing holding him back is the law.
>>8269837
Moral realism is a very defensible position, even if I disagree with it.
>>8269834
>For the arguments, stackexchange
If you give me a link, I'll look and give you an answer tomorrow.

>>8269842
It is not. Adults can only have sex with adults.

The age of consent is for teenagers. i.e.: if the age of consent is 15, that means teenagers aged 15-17 can have relationships legally.

>>8269846
>The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts
>age of consent
>considered to be legally
>to consent to sexual acts
Are you still playing retarded just to deny that you were wrong ?

>>8269849
In USA, the age is 16

Does it mean that you can have sex with someone aged 16?

Not at all, it's illegal if you are an adult.

It just means that if you are 16 or 17, you can have sex with someone aged 16 or 17.

>>8263706
>us

So he speaks for you and your group of goons, I guess. I, however, have what's called a mouth, and it allows me to speak for myself.

>>8269852
>In USA, the age is 16

No the age varies state to state you moron
At least get your facts straight if you're going to play the righteous crusader character

>>8269854
The point
-----------------
Your head

Fact of the matter, you didn't know what "age of consent" means.

Adults can't have relationships with the underage even if they are above age of consent.

File: 8NsSR[1].png (71KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1425x625px

>>8269852
K
Then lets talk about adulthood. Adulthood is also not a universal indicator nor set in stone. You can diddle kiddies with the age of 14 legally. If a countries laws were to change and it would be lowered, then you would find legal grounds to be a pedophile.

>>8269836
>everybody I don't agree with is a pedophile
>objective morality
>muh adulthood
Just fuck off you fat MLP watching piece of shit, will you?

>>8269856
The United Nations defines an adult as someone of age 18.

Every single country in the world has signed that international treaty.

International treaties are above local law.

Therefore, in every single country in the world, the age of adulthood is at least 18.

>>8269857
I don't watch MLP, I'm not a pedophile :^)
But you might be you morals lacking rapist, murdering pedophile.

>>8269862
The point is that you base it on some superficial manmade laws. If Purge day would to become real and all criminal acts would be legalized for 12 hours, people with your mindset would be the guys on the streets trying to massacre people and rape little girls, while people with my mindset would be the protectors of innocence, morals and human life.

>>8269867
>manmade morals are ok
>manmade laws are not

>>8269871
Morality is what you require when laws fail so the world doesn't turn into a zoo. Morals are what keeps you from becoming a murderous rapist pedophile. Laws are something that all people agree on, but usually changed by the rich people.
Years ago there was no law about slapping women, or spreading meth addiction, or hiring 12 year old prostitudes. Then people with morals came in and said that it was wrong. If it was up to you and your kind, we would still be people in leather jackets, getting stabbed on the streets, prostituting our 12 year olds and becoming junkies.
I'm glad moralfags won and sick-ass people like you lost.

>>8269867

If that did happen, you would eventually die because the reason we need a state in the first place is for protection, and they are saying "we dont care if you kill each other" which is essentially your fellow man saying that.

Most of the time when I look at another human being I can see the "ape" in them......We look and act like monkeys and it is one of the ways I really do my best to see eye to eye with people is that we are fucking animals talking to each other.

And there is no place in the jungle for the type of behavior you think is superficial. Nature does not allow it and the fact that we have prisons is proof.

>>8269874
Ohhh, I get it

You think that 'morals being subjective' equal 'morals not existing'

You are wrong

>>8269875
Well we don't live in the zoo anymore so no more rapey-time for you mr sick-ass

>>8269876
Nope, saying objective morals not existing equals to saying objective morals not existing. Just like the incestman suggested and just like you're supporting it now.

>>8269878
And what's the source of objective morality?

>>8269879
Your conscience.

>>8269882
Huh, what about sociopaths?

>>8269882
What's the difference between morals being subjective and morals being objective (the objective source being each conscience)?

>>8269862
>The United Nations defines

>I do not understand how law or the world works

>>8269887
international treaties > local law

>>8269885
No conscience = sick-ass
>>8269886
If you have morals thats one thing. It means you are determined to do the right thing and not be sick-ass. But if you claim objective morality doesn't exist, then you can define your morality based on different things. You can say that my morality wants to to be a pedophile and justify it with whatever bullshit reason you try to come up with.
Would you like to have each of us have subjective laws about the world ? Like maybe torture and murder isn't againt my laws ?

>>8269896

>Would you like to have each of us have subjective laws about the world ? Like maybe torture and murder isn't againt my laws ?

You have it backwards man.....Humans make laws, not the other way around.

The way you're talking about it is like a "law" is going to stop someone from doing something.

In reality, its a human being that will stop you, eventually. That is what a law is. A human.

>>8269899
>a "law" isn't going to stop someone from doing something.
If we could do better, we would.
>In reality, its a human being that will stop you, eventually.
Yes. A human being with morals and consciense. It's the people with morals who stop sociopaths and psychopaths with no morals who start torturing and mutilating cats and dogs, then move on to hunting people.

>>8269896
Subjective morality means that morality is based on consensus

Your definition is much more dangerous, because it means each individual gets their own morality

>>8269900

>A human being with morals and consciense.

No, because there are two sides to the coin. You are only looking at one side.

Look at it from the perspective of the killer. Why do you favor the "moral" man who prefers life and the living? It is your personal preference, and unfortunately not everyone likes what you like.

Fortunately though, most people like life and being alive. Its not that we care that people are dying because we don't.....people die every day, there are people being bombed right now and you know what, you and I are not doing anything to stop it. I see all kinds of videos of people being killed in the streets begging for help and people are just walking by....Morals like you saw in Disney do not exist.

>>8269902
You are the one advocating subjective morality, I am the one advocating objective morality, which the incest man said doesn't exist.

>>8269904
Because people with low morals exist, which causes this sick-assness

>>8269906

laws change all the time. The world is always changing just think how different things were 500 years ago.....

if the nazis won it would probably be immoral to speak to a german with your eyes up or something, you know? Laws only do one thing: They spell out in black and white "THIS IS WHO HAS BEEN VICTORIOUS, AND THIS IS WHO LOST."

>>8269905
consensus morality is the only way to go

>>8269769
>Harris not scientist
Sure, honey, whatever you say

>>8269876
>>8269878
Error theory and relativism aren't the same thing
>>8269879
Moral realists don't know, but they say moral facts are accesed by the brain / built by reason, iirc
>>8269886
If morals are objective, in a moral discussion there's a right and a wrong, not just opinions
Also, epistemic oughts
>>8269885
Moral realists take them to be like dumb people and maths, they just don't get it
>>8270657
I kinda get what he says, he's not contributed a lot to his field and he's mostly known for his political and philosophical commentary (which imo he sucks at, but whatever)

>>8267167
He wins the crowd because they're a bunch of idiotic atheists that will clap at anything another atheist says, they only want their already established beliefs to be validated.

I'm an atheist but his arguments were extremely weak, he had NO knowledge of ethics, he didn't even know what utilitarianism was, come on. He's incredibly ill-prepared and Craig blasted his asshole.
He made false comparisons, he changed the subject, he kept mentioning his "moral outrage" at the claims of his opponent.

For someone with a PhD and obviously smart man, I just expected some intellectual coherence on other things other than science.

>>8270735
Basically this, yeah. You just have to look at the shit in these threads man.

>>8270735
>For someone with a PhD and obviously smart man, I just expected some intellectual coherence on other things other than science.
Welcome to overspecialization. It makes people uninspired and worthless for anything other than the tedium of data crunching, as far as I'm concerned.

Why bother walking around cataloguing grains of sand if you'll never bother, or be willing, to try to see the desert.

>>8270786
Krauss sees all the deserts just fine

He just doesn't have time to be condescending towards religiousfags like WDL (the guy non ironically tries to argue that the laws of the universe make exceptions for miracles)

>>8270804
>Krauss sees all the deserts just fine
>all
Ignoring the all (no individual an veritably know it sees them all), he clearly doesn't and his insistence on a number of philosophical stances proves it. He's forgotten he's slave to the universe, not the other way around, and no amount of angst is going to make it all be the way he wants.

>>8270735
Krauss unprepared is enough to demolish any Christfag

>>8263713
>LE ATHEISM IS A RELIGION XDDDD

>>8270809
>hurr why doesn't he read about muh philosophy

Perhaps because common sense is enough to destroy the retards that try to debate him

>>8270813
Common sense is not a valid logical framework. If that's all he's willing to bring, he shouldn't bother debating.

>>8270822
Why shouldn't he? Let's see

>wins all the debates
>converts thousands and thousands people to atheism
>conveys the importance of science

New generations love science thanks to him. It's because of him that real scientists will have easy access to a lot of government money.

>>8270826
Unfortunately, while I don't like it, and know I'm more right than you, there is some truth in that. He doesn't "win" anything to anyone with half a brain and a basic awareness of science and philosophy, but then again, that's not his target audience. Those people have already figured it out for themselves, to some extent, and can selectively harvest elements from hist viewpoint as they see fit.

The bigger picture is the problem. The people's "converting (ie pushing over the edge, or spurring to think) may well go on to be part of the greater problem. Krauss is often an unwitting philosopher, and a bad one. He spreads maladaptive new age ways of thinking.

I can see how someone would think he's a net positive, but from my perspective that's a difficult notion to agree with. I'm apt to see him as a net negative in a changing world of quickly accumulating negatives.

This thread belongs on /lit/ or /his/.

>>8270844
Nobody watches Krauss for philosophy

You watch him for physics, and to see him making fun of Christfags

>>8270844
Oh yeah, I would much rather have the evangelists win those minds... sure... heh... what could go wrong? (good bye money for science)

>>8267732
All statistics on mongolian basket-weaving sites are incorrect and/or made up.

>>8270853
Sounds like it's all a smug circle jerk while preaching to the choir.

How "'useful".

>>8270857
Why does he have to be useful? That's some bad philosophy. Nobody has the obligation to be useful.

>>8270854
Bigger picture bud. There's more than one way to approach the same thing.

I betcha I'd "win" those same minds, but better, harder, and deeper. ;^)

Alright, I gotta go, I'm starting to not be able to take this seriously and don't want to drift into that kind of mood.

>>8270864
No you wouldn't

You may know more about philosophy, but you don't have charisma, even your posts are dull

>>8270863
This is why bad philosophy needs to be stopped before it grows.

>Why does he have to be useful?
I never said he did. Implicit in this conversation is that the ideal would be for him to have the greatest net positive and spur a wider spectrum of people to think about their world in a new way.

>Nobody has the obligation
Look up what the word obligation means, then relate it to this context. Obligation is not a hard mechanical descriptor.

>>8270874
religion is worse than bad philosophy, because philosophy at least is not fundamentalist

>>8270867
>but you don't have charisma
This is kind of true, but not in the long run. There's an initial overhead people where people must see me as dry and blunted, but eventually they become tuned to the finesses and realize how I'm constructing what I'm saying.

I've also given a massive amount of thought to everything I'm saying, and it's very well integrated. This lack of compartmentalization makes it easy to start at the base and provide people with natural empirical evidence at every step. From all the science lectures I've watched, this fluidity is what is missing. It's low signal, high noise, lots of looping trying to brute force the same point as many ways as possible hoping one of them sticks.

>>8270890
>science lectures
(And by lectures I mean debates, and shit like Krauss or Dawkins tend to do. Though Dawkins is much better about it.)

>>8270890
Make YouTube videos then, nerd

Have some impact on the world already

>>8263706
Theists can get fucked, seriously. They teach children that god has made them in their image, but they are mad when they get called out on their bullshit. And they point to some pseudo-Christian Deist and say "what he did he do to deserve all this Atheist hate, fedora tippy tippy". This debate has never been anything but pure sophism. So dear outspoken theists, back to your containment board:

>>>/pol/

>>8268291
>>8268237

there is literally not a single jot of an argument against incest

not for it being degenerate or morally wrong or anything like that

of course its wrong if pedophilia or coercion is involved just like it would be wrong if these things were involved in a heterosexual relationship

>>8271066
There is no containment board for theism. This is a free platform tolerant for people of all religion, color, ethnicity and ideology. Not to mention science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Everyone is free to stay here as much as they like because we are civilized tolerant people. FCK H8