Phyreblade (1414) 118 SFW Posts | 4,858 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed I just ain't right... Registered 2007-10-19 10:18:23 Comment Karma: 45 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from Phyreblade

Comment on millenium enterprice falcon (2011-03-21 14:23:29)
Indeed... This is an abomination!
Comment on machette (2011-03-21 14:16:48)
I have only one thing to say. His blade carry methodology is absolutely horrible. Seriously.
Comment on Logic (2011-03-21 14:09:07)
You know, there may be some validity to that idea. A persons brain chemistry is determined by genetic factors, and this tends to predispose people to certain behaviors. IE adrenaline junkies brains are wired to crave adrenaline, which makes them love roller coaster rides, people with excessive testosterone tend to predispose them to violent behavior, hormonal imbalances can make people unstable, etc. These are all genetically determined physiological conditions that affect how people mentally process and respond to information. So it would not be unreasonable to presume that at some level, everyone is genetically wired a certain way, which predisposes them to behaving in one way or another, with environmental factors tipping the balance one way or another.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-16 11:34:39)
1. You cannot argue scientific fact with someone whose belief system is supposed to be based on faith. If you don't understand why that is the case, then I believe your understanding of scientific principle is flawed. 2. "Good" reasons for whatever a person believes in are not universal. Yours is not the only valid measure of what is a "Good" reason to do or believe in something is, and it is simply arrogance to believe so. 3. I am not a fan of moral relativism, however it is true that what is right for one person is not right for another. Anyone who makes the blanket statement "Religion is harmful to others." Is missing that point, and is also forgetting that for some people it simply works better than secularism, because it is based on intangibles. 4. When we talk about the rules of any way of thinking, the irrationality I mentioned before appears regardless of the source of those rules. Bronze age dogma, vs modern day scientific elitism/egocentrism, neither is more rational than the other. And, more importantly, Both sides become equally defensive when their beliefs are attacked, whether they are religious or not. It is not a trait that only religious people exhibit, as you seem to believe. 5. Sure some religious people try to explain religion in scientific terms. I didn't say that makes any more sense than than atheists trying to make scientific sense of religion. Both approaches are equally and deeply flawed. 6. Again, religious thinking is NOT scientific thinking. The fact that religious folks try to make parallels doesn't make it true. If you don't understand why this is the case, then I don't think you understand religion either. 7. I really don't care about things being equal. You seem to think that your way of thinking is smarter, cleverer, and superior to those that are religious. That is simply arrogance talking, not logic or rationality. Believing in science does not automatically make a person any more rational than a person who holds religious beliefs. Some people need intangibles in order to keep going. Sometimes the independent conviction it provides is more useful, and more effective as a motivator than others. Some humans can walk through life not knowing anything about anything. Others need to have answers, some kind of structure, a reason for being, even if it makes no sense. And there are people like that across the board, not just religious folk. It is simply a function of human nature. And everyone has the right to decide for themselves how to deal with that dilemma. We each pick our own poison. I guess it is also human nature for everyone to believe their poison is better than everyone elses, but it simply isn't true. You cannot place these ways of thinking on a scientific balance and say one is better than the other. It ignores the fact that *people* are different. You seem to believe that modern secular humanism is so much better than religion. But I see the same flawed lessons that are often learned in religious contexts also learned in secular contexts. It is no better at conquering human flaws, irrational thinking and emotions than any other way of thinking. You've simply traded one set of rules for another, but are still dealing with the same, flawed humans you had before. None of your arguments have been about understanding humans at an individual level, only making wide sweeping assumptions about groups of people. And yet you claim to rile against the oppression of individuality of religion, which, incidentally, is also a flawed presumption. I don't have any problems with modern Secular Humanism, I think it's a good thing, but in my admittedly irrelevant opinion, your arguments have not showcased it's strengths particularly well either.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-15 20:13:47)
Where did I say that ideas should not be discussed? Where do I propose that harmful ideologies should not be criticized? You are engaging in "straw man" reasoning. You have no rational or logical basis for accusing me of thinking as a victim or an enabler. And you've just proved my point. Your statements all end in question marks, but you are not actually asking me any questions. You've already decided what you think I believe. Everybody reads, and argues, however few try to actually understand. Why is it so difficult for people to actually ask questions, and listen to peoples responses, instead of making unfounded inferences and accusations? In response to questions you chose not to ask: 1. The "good" in the phrase "...having good reasons for what you believe..." is a relative term. A good reason for one person or in a particular paradigm, is not a good reason in others. For an atheist/scientist, religion could just be some crazy idea that some primitive human being came up with to describe how we came to be. For religious folk, it could be hope in the face of great odds, or a source of strength in the face of great trials or oppression, no matter how irrational it may be. Every individual I have ever gotten to know to any degree, both of the theistic and atheistic variety, exhibits some irrational behavior of one sort or another, and I don't think anyone has the right to deny another their irrationality so long as it is not harmful to others. And yes, "harmful to others" is also subject to interpretation. 2. Harmful ideologies should absolutely be discussed and criticized, however people on both sides make the mistake of treating every ideology they disagree with as though it were harmful. The truth is, there is good and bad in everything, and if they were truly thinking rationally about it, they would realize that not only are there are an equal number of harmful ideologies that come from their own ways of thinking, but there are also beneficial aspects to be found in almost every way of thinking. I am not arguing that the inquisitive scientific mind should stop asking questions when it comes to religion. However I *am* saying is it us unreasonable and irrational to expect a scientific answer from a person whose way of thinking is non-scientific in nature. It is also innately unscientific to take only the bad attributes, or negative samples of any belief system and use that as a basis for what should rightly be a comprehensive scientific analysis of that system. And yet I see supposedly scientific people do this every day. Both sides have massive flaws. I wish people would stop an think long enough to realize neither side is better off, more enlightened or smarter than the other, and focus on trying to understand each other as people instead.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-14 15:37:28)
At the risk of demonstrating that my sarcasmeter is broken, Mags isn't arguing for or against either theists or antheists. He JDGAF. He doesn't believe, but I think he also believes that discarding a way of thinking that seems irrational, and cannot be proved does not automatically put you in a better position than those that do. To be honest, while I don't agree with him on a number of things, I like his stance on this topic. The argument is indeed pointless. Religious folks don't have to prove anything, because their beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith, which by definition, is a belief in something *sans* evidence. Atheistic folks shouldn't be arguing with religious folks, because their beliefs are, in fact, grounded entirely in the process of proving theories. I think that if each side were being honest with themselves, they would realize that there is no reason to butt heads, at least based solely on a belief in an unverifiable entity (or lack thereof) alone, and in fact there should not even be a conflict because each way of thinking operates in completely different, and entirely unrelated paradigms. Both the ills of the world, like oppression of free will/thought, violence, etc, and acts of kindness like philanthropy, humanitarian aid, etc. occur both in secular and non-secular environments, and can therefore be attributed solely to the one thing that supersedes both: human nature. Regardless of what superficial banner, (religion, greed, hate, ignorance, goodness, kindness, altruism, whatever) these behaviors occur under, they are all a function of individual beliefs, biased, for better or worse, by their past experiences and innate nature. The real problem, as I see it, is that too many proponents from both sides never show the other side even a modicum of tolerance, understanding and respect. I think this is really why a lot of conflicts occur between the two sides.
Comment on Vulcan Starships (2011-03-10 21:07:52)
Vulcan Starship design... I see a recurring theme... o_O
Comment on DoubleGlock Machine Pistol (2011-03-10 21:02:50)
I am kinda curious about how you'd use those optics while firing a full auto double Glock...
Comment on Hard Candy (2011-03-10 20:59:25)
It's a trap?
Comment on Fu Chen Sung with Bagua Broadsword (2011-03-10 20:57:55)
ROFLMAO... Actually there are many examples of real life oversized cutlery in "asian culture", :D There are also humongous Khukuris for ceremonial Cow beheadings, and giant Nodachis/Odachis too...
Comment on Demon Cat (2011-03-10 20:46:45)
So you're saying that's not a cat? 0_O
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-10 20:38:10)
Nah, Ricky ain't got da juice to go toe to toe with The Moldy Bible. I'm just sayin'.
Comment on Moldy Bible (2011-03-10 20:25:59)
I'm doing alright man... Just trying to stay outta trouble. How 'bout yourself?
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-08 10:42:20)
I think you are half right. I agree that the true source of many of the evils of the world is human nature. No more, no less. However while Religious beliefs have indeed been a widely used justification for evil actions, I've known just as many atheistic people to justify their evil without the benefit of religion, and still sleep like babies. I think people find it too easy to lay the blame at the feet of religion, when the true problem with the world is human nature. Perhaps it is more frightening to face this reality than the alternatives.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on Atheism (2011-03-07 15:16:13)
Actually he lost a lot of weight.