fencerman t1_it34k0p wrote on October 20, 2022 at 4:16 PM

> It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world.

Is it, though?

There is a political backlash against the advancement of rights for marginalized groups in different parts of the world, like the anti-trans hysteria in much of the UK and US for instance.

But even though that's "anti-science" it's far from being purely religious, and there are no shortage of secular bigots involved.

The rise of "Islamic Fundamentalism" wasn't some accident, or even related to "science" at all, it was an intentionally funded movement by US and Israeli interests as a bulwark against communism and other secular nationalist movements, which was viewed as a more dangerous enemy at the time. See for instance how Israel was largely responsible for the rise of Hamas as a counter-movement to Fatah, or US funding of Saudi and Afghanistan religious extremism.

BasketCase0024 OP t1_it35a66 wrote on October 20, 2022 at 4:21 PM

While your examples are accurate, the article itself mentions different cases in India, Turkey and USA to point to the above mentioned statement.

fencerman t1_it3av38 wrote on October 20, 2022 at 4:56 PM

In those cases too, you still have to look at a deeper understanding of the conditions in those specific countries rather than a generalized "religion vs science" lens.

It's fair to link religion to authoritarian movements generally, but that's still a political issue more than a scientific one.

krussell25 t1_it633o2 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 5:03 AM

I would say it is more cultural than political. While religion is used to control the masses in many areas, that would not explain the current uprisings against the religious leaders in Iran. In that specific case, the population is not quite so religious as advertised and the corruption/brutality of the government has brought unrest.

The USA is another interesting case. The religion embracing conservatives are willing to accept a leader who is by no means a moral Christian in the hopes of stopping the progressive changes the country has seen in the past 2 generations.

iiioiia t1_it3micm wrote on October 20, 2022 at 6:11 PM

> It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world.

It may be worth wondering about the specifics of the backlash, where it exists.

For my part, I think "science", in all its forms (including the media and public's ~worship of it), is getting "too big for its britches", and I would prefer they "stick to their lane". Or at least: try to consider whether they do have a lane that they would be well advised, for the benefit of the whole, to stick to.

> This itself is a great irony considering those parts of the world have also experienced great scientific development alongside.

They have also typically experienced interference in their affairs by foreign powers, as well as many other things.

Causality seems simple, but it is not actually.

WrongAspects t1_it96to3 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 9:13 PM

What is the lane of science? It seems to me that given all the branches of science everything is in their lane.

The problem is that religions don’t stick to their lane. They insist on commenting on things such as whether evolution is real, how old the universe is, when life begins, nature of consciousness, what it means to be a trans or gay person and what kind of health care those people should be allowed to get.

iiioiia t1_it99ej0 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 9:31 PM

> What is the lane of science? It seems to me that given all the branches of science everything is in their lane.

Matters in the strictly physical/materialistic world.

Some sub-disciplines (psychology) rightfully deal in the metaphysical, which is fine, but I strongly object to people implying (with or without conscious intent) that the competency and quality of results in the hard sciences also exists within psychology.

> The problem is that religions don’t stick to their lane.

It's a problem, but not "the" problem (it is only one problem among many).

Another problem is Scientific Materialists not sticking to theirs. Also, they tend to be overconfident in their beliefs, mix up objective and subjective, belief and knowledge, etc. I mean, everyone does it, but SM's tend to perceive themselves as necessarily objectively superior at thinking.

> They insist on commenting on things such as whether evolution is real, how old the universe is, when life begins, nature of consciousness, what it means to be a trans or gay person and what kind of health care those people should be allowed to get.

There's quit a mix here. I'd say: you saying that these things are "not the business" of religion is an example of the flaws I note above.

You can declare them off limits, and I will simply undo it by declaring the opposite. And, I suspect I will enjoy the back and forth, whereas you may have a strong emotionally negative reaction to it, and perhaps not quite appreciate what is going on at the same level.

WrongAspects t1_it9v5zs wrote on October 22, 2022 at 12:19 AM

Can you name something that exists outside of the physical material world and also tell me how you know it exists.

Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itb5d73 wrote on October 22, 2022 at 8:15 AM

>Can you name something that exists outside of the physical material world and also tell me how you know it exists.

I know that there are other dimensions beyond our own and that matter exists in them. I know this because dark matter and other elements "exist". How many there are in total? I couldn't say. 10 seems to be an agreeable number at the moment.

Can you tell me a profound conclusion on this level that science can actually answer for me? I like science. I think it is useful. We have been following the threads of science for multiple generations now. Every single time science declares it has all of the answers though, another rabbit hole appears. Almost like a carrot on a stick, the true answers always just slightly out of arms' reach. Perhaps that is by design?

iiioiia t1_itbzuqi wrote on October 22, 2022 at 2:08 PM

> Can you name something that exists outside of the physical material world

Causality.

Human delusion and hubris.

> and also tell me how you know it exists.

People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> > > > Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itcq70u wrote on October 22, 2022 at 5:18 PM

>Causality.

>Human delusion and hubris.

Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

>People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources)

Causes of what?

>I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

>This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material. I want to know what that is. Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists. Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit.

iiioiia t1_itcv2p8 wrote on October 22, 2022 at 5:51 PM

> Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

What device is used to measure them?

What is the unit of measure?

Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> Causes of what?

The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

>>> Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

>> I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

> What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

For clarity (to avoid people accidentally using a colloquial meaning of the term):

supernatural: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond [current] scientific understanding or the laws of nature"

>> This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

> I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material.

Correct. Perhaps you can release me from this potential delusion by answering my questions.

> I want to know what that is.

a) Causality.

b) Human delusion and hubris.

> Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists.

For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

For "Human delusion and hubris": People complain about the consequences of it [causality], passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled.

For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material. I believe they could do much more, but to their credit they at least try, if only somewhat (bureaucracy and delusion makes innovation and progress difficult - recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

> You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit..

Great, then let's proceed.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itdmr9q wrote on October 22, 2022 at 9:02 PM

>What device is used to measure them?

I'll tackle human delusion and hubris.

They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

>What is the unit of measure?

There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

>Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

in the brain.

>The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

>I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

>For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

What do you mean by the cause of causality?

>For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled

Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

>I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

>recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

>Great, then let's proceed.

We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.

iiioiia t1_itgmbhv wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:36 PM

> They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.

> There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

See above.

>> Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> in the brain.

See bolding.

>>> Causes of what?

>> The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Causality isn't really covered in Western curriculum/ideology.

> So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

No, that's your interpretation.

>> I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

Nicely played! ;)

>> For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> What do you mean by the cause of causality?

If I steal your bike and you punch me, my stealing your bike is plausibly the cause of you punching me.

> Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

> OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

See Western curriculum above.

>> I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

> But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

Please quote the specific text from which you have extracted this specific assertion.

> Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

No, it demonstrates how relatively smart people can be dumb on an absolute scale. That this is not easy for you to discern may demonstrate how people have difficulty cognitively navigating between the two scales while considering a single idea.

> We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.

It would be interesting to do a crowd-sourced causal analysis of the problem!!!

ConsciousLiterature t1_itcpn7r wrote on October 22, 2022 at 5:14 PM

>I know that there are other dimensions beyond our own and that matter exists in them. I know this because dark matter and other elements "exist".

Dark matter is in our universe and definitely belongs to the material physical world.

Since you have based your belief in the other dimensions on this piece of evidence I presume you no longer believe those things right?

> Every single time science declares it has all of the answers though, another rabbit hole appears. Almost like a carrot

Science is a process of discovery. The universe is vast and complex. As we learn more we find there is more to learn.

Perhaps that's not by design at all. Perhaps you are just another religious person who sticks god into every gap because you are afraid of going to hell and your parents instilled that fear into you while you were young.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itcufx3 wrote on October 22, 2022 at 5:46 PM

Can you cite a scientific source for these claims?

Science is a process of discovery. Why is it such a foreign thought to believe that someone could deduce their way towards religion? I started out as a nihilist. The more I studied quantum physics, the more I found scientists that go deep down that path turn to religion. I know this is shattering to your thesis but I didn't make your thesis.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itdn9xb wrote on October 22, 2022 at 9:06 PM

>Can you cite a scientific source for these claims?

For dark matter? There is a buttload of papers.

>Science is a process of discovery. Why is it such a foreign thought to believe that someone could deduce their way towards religion?

Because there is no evidence for the supernatural nor could there be any evidence for the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is not in this universe and is not detectable.

> I started out as a nihilist. The more I studied quantum physics, the more I found scientists that go deep down that path turn to religion. I know this is shattering to your thesis but I didn't make your thesis.

It's not shattering at all. All kinds of people discover religion for all kinds of reasons. Some people accept god because they hear voices in their head. Some people look at the trees and are instantly convinced god exists. Some people survive a traumatic event and are convinced god did it.

Why would it be shattering to me that some nihilist tried to study quantum physics and somehow got convinced god exists and created the universe and send his only begotten son to be sacrificed for my sins?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itdp8yk wrote on October 22, 2022 at 9:21 PM

Evidence for the specific claims you made about dark matter. I never said I believe that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Your views seem very narrow. I can tell you're under 25. Be well!

ConsciousLiterature t1_itep64v wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:00 AM

>Evidence for the specific claims you made about dark matter.

I am still confused about what you want here. I made the claim that dark matter exists in this universe. Every paper on dark matter is about that.

>I never said I believe that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

Sorry I presumed you were a christian given this is an english language forum.

What relligion do you believe in? Are you a muslim? A Buddhist? A viccan perhaps?

>I can tell you're under 25. Be well!

Yet another thing you are deluded about. You seem to be susceptible to believing things on no merit and without any credible evidence.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itepu2t wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:06 AM

It doesn't exist "in this universe" though, or maybe it does. It interacts with matter in this universe. That does not necessitate that it exists in this universe.

I think that Islam is the truthful account.

I really don't think I'm deluded about the age at all. Narrow-mindedness to such a degree is only a youthful quality, literally because the brain has not fully developed yet.

ConsciousLiterature t1_iterdhk wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:19 AM

>It doesn't exist "in this universe" though, or maybe it does.

But it does. Why don't you try learning some things about it?

>It interacts with matter in this universe.

Because it's in this universe.

>That does not necessitate that it exists in this universe.

Yea it does.

>I think that Islam is the truthful account.

Ok then you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two.

>I really don't think I'm deluded about the age at all.

But you are deluded though.

>Narrow-mindedness to such a degree is only a youthful quality, literally because the brain has not fully developed yet.

And yet I don't believe a human is able to split the moon in two.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_ites524 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:25 AM

Can you go get some for me to prove it does?

Can you even prove gravity exists in this universe?

What happened one second before the Big Bang?

Science has all the answers though you say. I say that's quite a belief you have. I also say that no matter what road you go, you're believing in something.

No, I do not think Mohammed split the moon in two (PBUH).

If I am deluded about the age then you are definitely a narcissist. That's fine too. I still lean towards a little Column A, little Column B rather than just one of those though.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itf6ghs wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:40 AM

>Can you go get some for me to prove it does?

As I said please read some papers or watch some youtube videos on it.

>Can you even prove gravity exists in this universe?

I am not a physicist but yes it has been proven that gravity exists in this universe. I can't believe I am talking to a person who denies gravity exists. That's a new one.

>What happened one second before the Big Bang?

Nobody knows. Do you?

>Science has all the answers though you say.

I never said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth. Why are you so dishonest?

>No, I do not think Mohammed split the moon in two (PBUH).

Then you don't believe the quron is the truth.

>If I am deluded about the age then you are definitely a narcissist.

Or maybe you are a person who believes things based on no evidence.

>That's fine too. I still lean towards a little Column A, little Column B rather than just one of those though.

it's actually column C. You lack thinking and analytical skills. You are prone to believing things that are not true.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itf6z0u wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:45 AM

I see now. What is your definition of in this universe? Mine is, in our same universe and dimension. What is the gravity particle? How does gravity actually work according to science?

>Why are you so dishonest?

Because I am specifically trained in rhetoric. That's my secret in every situation I find myself in. I'm better at it than you. I also have quite a few years of life experience on you, young narcissist.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itf7g9i wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:50 AM

>What is your definition of in this universe? Mine is, in our same universe and dimension.

Yup same as me.

>What is the gravity particle?

The graviton is the proposed name.

> How does gravity actually work according to science?

read a science book.

>Because I am specifically trained in rhetoric.

A person specifically trained in rhetoric won't be as dishonest and sleazy as you.

>I'm better at it than you.

You are dishonest and I am not. That makes me better.

>I also have quite a few years of life experience on you, young narcissist.

more experience in denying gravity exists I guess.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itf811s wrote on October 23, 2022 at 4:57 AM

I've read enough science books to know that you cannot scientifically tell me how gravity actually fundamentally works at all. I don't deny its existence. No shit it exists. Your personal god (science/yourself) can't explain it though. What use is this science you hold above everything else when it can't even answer what should be a very trivial question? It could though! So much belief. That is a bigger leap of faith than the alternative when you actually think about it. Why do you want to be right so much in this area? Why does it matter to you inside so much? "Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" I can clearly see which way you have chosen in response to that question lol.

>A person specifically trained in rhetoric won't be as dishonest and sleazy as you.

Statements like these are how I know you are 12. Welcome to the real world, kiddo. People like me are at the top of it.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itf8qy8 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:05 AM

>I've read enough science books to know that you cannot scientifically tell me how gravity actually fundamentally works at all.

I am pretty sure there are science books that tell you how gravity works.

>Your personal god (science/yourself) can't explain it though.

And yours does?

>What use is this science you hold above everything else when it can't even answer what should be a very trivial question?

I don't hold science above everything else and I don't claim it can answer every question.

As for what good science is well I am typing this on a computer on the internet while on medication so there you go it does plenty of good.

> Why do you want to be right so much in this area?

Because I am?

>Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Not at all.

> I can clearly see which way you have chosen in response to that question lol.

See above.

>Statements like these are how I know you are 12.

Statements like are how I know you lack thinking skills and base your beliefs on whatever it is you are feeling at the moment.

> People like me are at the top of it.

I don't see too many muslims on the top of anything.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itf9c5q wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:12 AM

>I am pretty sure there are science books that tell you how gravity works.

I give you enough credit that I think you get the actual point.

>And yours does?

For me.

>I don't see too many muslims on the top of anything.

Once you blow through all the pleasures of being "successful" and finally bottom out from it all, you start spending a lot of time focusing on personal development. What else is there that is actually meaningful to do? I found the path that works for me after all of that. You should honestly be very thankful I did.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfbxkx wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:43 AM

>Once you blow through all the pleasures of being "successful" and finally bottom out from it all, you start spending a lot of time focusing on personal development.

If you are an example of a muslim who has achieved the top of personal development then no thanks. I don't want anything to do with islam and I hope to god all muslims don't act and think like you do.

>I found the path that works for me after all of that.

A path that believes dark matter and gravity don't exist in this universe.

Disgusting.

>You should honestly be very thankful I did.

Why?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfckye wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:51 AM

Do you always pass such sweeping judgements so quickly, my lord? You know absolutely nothing about me beyond this very brief exchange in which I have been purposefully dismissive and avoidant of several of your questions. You started out the conversation with an immediately insulting tone, and yet I have still treated you with far more respect than you deserve. I am Buddha for being able to deal with people like you. You must have a TON of friends lmfao.

>A path that believes dark matter and gravity don't exist in this universe.

You have yet to provide a singular source that proves that they do. You cannot prove exactly what they are or how they function, what they are even comprised of. Therefore you cannot make such a statement. The fact that you continue to distort this position so severely yet throw out the insults you do proves the narcissism. I have a lot of experience dealing with narcissists. What I love most is that they can never not respond.

>Why?

I was not a very nice person.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfd0zy wrote on October 23, 2022 at 5:57 AM

>Do you always pass such sweeping judgements so quickly, my lord?

Do you object to being judged by your words and actions? How else should I judge you?

>You know absolutely nothing about me beyond this very brief exchange in which I have been purposefully dismissive and avoidant of several of your questions.

I have based my opinion on this exchange. Everything is based on things you said.

>You started out the conversation with an immediately insulting tone, and yet I have still treated you with far more respect than you deserve.

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>I am Buddha for being able to deal with people like you. You must have a TON of friends lmfao.

I do have a ton of friends. None of them believe gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe though and oddly enough none of them have demanded I tell them how gravity works.

>You have yet to provide a singular source that proves that they do.

Pick up any science book. Have you provided some evidence that they exist outside of this universe?

>What I love most is that they can never not respond.

Is that why you continue to respond?

>I was not a very nice person.

you are not a very nice person now.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfd9br wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:00 AM

>you are not a very nice person now.

But I try to be. I've treated you with a lot of respect, a lot more than is deserved, that is why I continue to respond.

>Do you object to being judged by your words and actions? How else should I judge you?

What gives you the inherent right to judge anyone? God.

>Pick up any science book. Have you provided some evidence that they exist outside of this universe?

My only argument here is that I personally find it odd that science always comes tantalizingly close to these answers. Like 98%. But never 100%.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfgj72 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:43 AM

>But I try to be.

I see no evidence of this.

>I've treated you with a lot of respect,

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>What gives you the inherent right to judge anyone? God.

There is no god.

>My only argument here is that I personally find it odd that science always comes tantalizingly close to these answers. Like 98%. But never 100%.

That's not an argument.

Can you prove gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfgvqi wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:47 AM

>I see no evidence of this.

I'm not interested in your opinion on this particular subject honestly. I am on the more general subject.

>You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

How much respect do you think you inherently deserve? I have certainly treated you with magnitudes more respect than you have me. Have I thrown an insult or two in? Yes.

>There is no god.

But you exist. You judge people like you are god. Why are you not the god of your own universe?

>Can you prove gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe?

No.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfh7qd wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:52 AM

>How much respect do you think you inherently deserve?

More than zero. You have given me no respect at all.

>Have I thrown an insult or two in? Yes.

Yes you have.

>But you exist.

This is true.

>You judge people like you are god.

There is no god. I judge people like I am a human being who judges people based on the things they say and do.

>Why are you not the god of your own universe?

I don't have a universe.

>No.

Then why do you believe such silly things?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfhmna wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:57 AM

>More than zero. You have given me no respect at all.

One trait of a narcissist is that they always approach the world in very black or white thinking. Only absolutes. What do you think about that?

>I judge people like I am a human being who judges people based on the things they say and do.

Would that be the role of god if they did exist?

>I don't have a universe.

Are you the god of yourself?

>Then why do you believe such silly things?

I think that your position is a further leap from where humanity stands with its current knowledge of the universe than mine is. I have my own hypothesis as to why it is the preferred stance.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfhspy wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:00 AM

>One trait of a narcissist is that they always approach the world in very black or white thinking. Only absolutes. What do you think about that?

I think you know less about psychology than you know about physics.

>Would that be the role of god if they did exist?

No. Also god doesn't exist

>Are you the god of yourself?

no.

>I think that your position is a further leap from where humanity stands with its current knowledge of the universe than mine is.

Nonsense.

>I have my own hypothesis as to why it is the preferred stance.

What is that?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfi3n6 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:04 AM

>I think you know less about psychology than you know about physics.

Why is this the question that makes you defensive? Do you not think you have exhibited a very clear pattern of narcissistic traits in this conversation?

>Nonsense.

No.

>What is that?

That people are narcissistic.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfjtnd wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:28 AM

>Why is this the question that makes you defensive?

What makes you think I am defensive?

>Do you not think you have exhibited a very clear pattern of narcissistic traits in this conversation?

Not at all.

>That people are narcissistic.

You certainly seem to be. Maybe it's a trait common in religious people. After all if you think there is some omniscient omnipresent being that created the universe and you think this being actually cares about you, what you eat, who you have sex with and why, where you touch yourself on your own body etc that's pretty narcissistic.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfki7x wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:37 AM

>What makes you think I am defensive?

It's the only one you gave more than a one word answer to, and you answered with an insult.

What would you classify as narcissistic traits?

>and you think this being actually cares about you, what you eat, who you have sex with and why, where you touch yourself on your own body etc that's pretty narcissistic.

I don't think that at all.

>You certainly seem to be.

But not you? I can assure you I do not meet the clinical definition or anything close to it. I have a plethora of Psychologists who have said so. I got sued and paid for a couple of lawyers' and multiple psychologists vacations and kids' college funds. I do not question at all where I clinically lie on any of those scales. I wasn't always such a nice person.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfm5tu wrote on October 23, 2022 at 8:00 AM

>It's the only one you gave more than a one word answer to, and you answered with an insult.

I think I actually over estimated your analytical skills.

>I don't think that at all.

Do you eat pork? What does the Quran have to say about that?

>But not you?

no not me.

> I can assure you I do not meet the clinical definition or anything close to it.

How can I trust your assurances? You have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about anything scientific and what's worse a highly illogical mind.

>I have a plethora of Psychologists who have said so.

Do you now.

>I got sued and paid for a couple of lawyers' and multiple psychologists vacations and kids' college funds.

Uh huh. Sure you did.

>I wasn't always such a nice person.

you are not a nice person now.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfmh30 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 8:04 AM

>I think I actually over estimated your analytical skills.

What would you classify as narcissistic tendencies?

>How can I trust your assurances?

I have no reason to lie to some dipshit on the internet who I am only interested in communicating with at a base level for my own scientific purposes.

>You have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about anything scientific and what's worse a highly illogical mind.

But I make more than you do. So, what's that tell you about society, or really the worth of your overall opinion on the subject?

>Uh huh. Sure you did.

See the two statements above.

>you are not a nice person now.

See the three statements above.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfe8ut wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:13 AM

Part of what I just said was a lie. I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist. Never in a meaningful way. I don't want that to be true inside for reasons that are my own. So, I experiment with that.

Personally, I am an empath. Doesn't mean I can't have narcissistic tendencies. Everyone does to some degree. I am not always a good person either as you have pointed out, but I try to be.

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfgdiu wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:41 AM

>Part of what I just said was a lie.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Huh?

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Another anti science stance I see.

>Personally, I am an empath.

I believe you believe that.

> Doesn't mean I can't have narcissistic tendencies.

Certainly not.

>I am not always a good person either as you have pointed out, but I try to be.

You are not trying hard enough.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfgmgm wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:44 AM

These are very sweeping judgements. You yourself exhibit the exact opposite of everything you just described me as, no? Do you ever actually reflect on that? Why do you think it is your job and or right to pass such sweeping judgements on people?

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfhbim wrote on October 23, 2022 at 6:53 AM

>These are very sweeping judgements.

They are highly specific judgements.\

>You yourself exhibit the exact opposite of everything you just described me as, no?

No.

>Why do you think it is your job and or right to pass such sweeping judgements on people?

I don't think it's my job. I do however have the right to judge anybody I want. Do you think I shouldn't have this right?

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfhuxn wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:01 AM

Who endowed you with this right?

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfi0m1 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:03 AM

The constitution of the united states.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfi721 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:05 AM

Where does it explicitly say that?

ConsciousLiterature t1_itfjmyn wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:25 AM

Freedom of speech.

Bodywithoutorgans18 t1_itfjugt wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:28 AM

Your freedom of speech ends at the point where it infringes on someone else though. Passing judgement on someone else can also be called libel, or slander.

MonkEfficient4237 t1_it6itu4 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 8:21 AM

Yeah, the religion is getting more powerful where society gets more technologized. What? On what planet are you living?

BasketCase0024 OP t1_it6qxi6 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:18 AM

I am assuming you are from Western Europe or Eastern Asia to say this. There are other places where religious movements have gained more momentum while scientific developments have also taken place.

MonkEfficient4237 t1_it6se6r wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:37 AM

Eastern EU. Religion is in decline here, but indeed in a slow pace but the countless problems with the hypocrisy of religious people that preach is erroding the trust they have in this institution. It is now just a matter of change of a generation. But nevermind, think about the north EU countries where is a high level of well being and they are all very technologized. If you think about it the industrial revolution was the beginning of the fall of religion,and it is not hard to see that the better they are as a society, the more secular they are.