So your spots are getting pounded ...

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

stlouisdude
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by stlouisdude »

I also disagree that Gulo should leave a forum where he found people who share a similar interest. It's your choice Gulo, but I don't think anyone wants to see you go, I know I would rather you stay. I believe Gerry is well intentioned, and even if I do not always understand his methods, he has been willing to speak up whenever he feels something is in error in general. (Personally, I think Gerry could sneak in more science lessons by dedicating his own thread to some kind of wildlife management practice in which he discusses why certain studies have internal/ecological validity problems and so on. ) I don't believe he tries pick on nonprofessionals or easy targets, save his personal battles with gonnaman :lol:

Stick around Gulo! You'll soon find it's best to learn to laugh around here and the greatest challenge being a herper is apparently managing relations with other herpers!

User avatar
Mike Rochford
Posts: 167
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:27 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by Mike Rochford »

Let me see if I'm getting closer to what you're trying to say here....

We shouldn't be anti-believer, anti-belief, or anti-religion just because those philosophies are probably lacking a factual foundation. So we should accept and tolerate religion but push for a version where the factual errors are absent? What does that leave? A moral plan for life? I don't have as much of a problem with Buddhism and similar eastern philosophies because they seem to pretty much say "treat others as you wish to be treated... " and the ideas generally conflict less with science than most other major religions do. But, honestly, what's left of most major religions after you get rid of the components that are most likely untrue? The golden rule? Then why have religion at all? I don't think science addresses the "why" but after it has addressed the "how" in so many ways that generally conflict with the "why" I think it does start to take a crack at the "why." Is it designed to do that? Probably not. But isn't that the logical next step?

I can handle being tolerant, understanding, and friendly toward religious folks and I think they deserve that but I still think it's in our best interest to be proactive in educating people about ideas like evolution and the dangers of following a life based on beliefs that are probably not true. I still don't see why ANYONE would ever want to base major life decisions on what is probably the wrong information.

And although some people probably do follow science religiously, a good scientist does not. Question everything (including science).... that should be the motto of a good scientist. BUT... there are some hypotheses that have been tested to a great degree... gotta go... continue later...

Mike

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by chad ks »

We shouldn't be anti-believer, anti-belief, or anti-religion just because those philosophies are probably lacking a factual foundation. So we should accept and tolerate religion but push for a version where the factual errors are absent?
It's been a mixed bag thus far Mike, I have commented primarily on scientific demarcation and definition as well as history, philosophy of science and the ethics of belief as well as criticism. To criticize is a gesture of defiance against something like an idea or someone like a person. In my opinion and based on my education in philosophy, it seems evident that when people criticize they are often unsure about what they are criticizing and why, but they almost always know that they find something distasteful. Well, I don't really like fruit, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to mock fruit eaters. It really is just as simple as that- people have the right to criticize others based on unethical or immoral behavior and NOTHING else. You shouldn't criticize someone's belief unless they are believing credulously and even then your criticism does more for you than it does for them (that is if you create an enemy through mockery and childish behavior). Of course it's very popular to make fun of the less educated in American popular culture, but that doesn't make it right. You can be anti-belief, but then you'll be a nihilist and that comes along with its own troubles. To be anti-religious represents a misunderstanding of religion that I believe will eventually be cleared up with the same understanding that I'm speaking about now: science IS religion. I consider myself a scientist because I'm very pragmatic in my beliefs- it frustrates me to see people misunderstanding science and then claiming expertise.
What does that leave? A moral plan for life? I don't have as much of a problem with Buddhism and similar eastern philosophies because they seem to pretty much say "treat others as you wish to be treated... " and the ideas generally conflict less with science than most other major religions do. But, honestly, what's left of most major religions after you get rid of the components that are most likely untrue?
I love eastern religions/philosophy Mike! We've spent lots of time talking about that and I loved every minute of it. The eastern religions are so vastly different than our western ideas that upon understanding them I was (hopefully) permanently changed for the better. In fact, my defense of the less fortunate, whether it be through education or social status, stems from my education in eastern philosophy which defies western forms of thought by focusing on improving the moral agent through discipline, kindness and tolerance of opposing belief systems. I think that most if not all scientists could take a lesson from Lao tzu, Saddartha and Confucius. You see, Mike, in my experience few of the people who are atheist or anti-religion have truly invested themselves, fairly, into history's philosophical dialogue about the existence of god and the claims made by various other religions. I know you Mike, you're a brilliant man and a fair one too, I believe wholeheartedly that if you studied hard for a few years and read specific philosophical arguments for and against god by people such as Descartes, Leibniz, Aquinas...Whitehead; I know for sure that you would come out of it with a healthy respect and admiration for the religious people who are also scholars and philosophers- the pure form of the religious person that doesn't misbehave. From there I believe that you would understand even the most offensive religious people, motivated by fear and antagonism, and why they act/react the way that they do. The same applies to all other good, healthy and wise scientists like yourself Mike. So to say that these beliefs are "likely untrue" is seriously misrepresenting the likelihood of them actually being true. There very well could be a god Mike, explore the arguments if you're really interested.
I can handle being tolerant, understanding, and friendly toward religious folks and I think they deserve that but I still think it's in our best interest to be proactive in educating people about ideas like evolution and the dangers of following a life based on beliefs that are probably not true. I still don't see why ANYONE would ever want to base major life decisions on what is probably the wrong information.
Naw, there's really no reason to be proactive about evolution. There's also no reason to be proactive about math. Those beautiful subjects are available to anyone who wishes to study them, to those who do not, they are still available. If the opportunity arrises to education or share about evolution, I say do it! But evolution isn't a religion to be spread, it isn't a controversial issue to be promoted, it's just a matter of fact that has no bearing on matters that aren't factual. I learned that lesson from you bud, way back in the day.

As far as what is probably wrong, if you want to speak about probabilities then it is absolutely probable that god exists rather than the eternity/spontaneity cosmological arguments against god. At least in the minds of people who aren't Stephen Hawking. I realize that I've written a book in this thread, but I already accounted for why a person would have beliefs that they do not question and that seem to us to be obviously false: it's because such a person values a life well lived more than a life lived in pursuit of truth. It's an old argument that dates back to the Greek Atomists, Skeptics and Epicureans: should one be honest, cynical and skeptical but fail to find happiness because it doesn't truly exist, or should one live a life of lies such as that love and happiness DO exist and can be real in spite of the overwhelming evidence that they are simply momentary chemical and electric interactions.
And although some people probably do follow science religiously, a good scientist does not.


I strongly disagree- the best scientists are the ones who hang up their lab coats but not their scientific brains when leaving the lab. It is simply a matter of fact that the majority of people who go into the sciences come out with a religious devotion to the truths that science has brought them. You're a perfect example and so am I. :beer:
Question everything (including science).... that should be the motto of a good scientist. BUT... there are some hypotheses that have been tested to a great degree... gotta go... continue later...
Keep up the good work down there Dr. Fresh (one day?)...

User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by jdustin »

This discussion has gotten boring. :lol: I think you all need another comic. ;)
Image

User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by azatrox »

Wanna know what's wrong with the last 3 pages of this thread?????

The word "snake" doesn't appear once....Sheesh! LOL

-Kris

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by chad ks »

Hey folks, I'm not sure how you interpret this forum, but to me it's not just a place to discuss herps...it's also a place for herpers to discuss whatever. That's why we have the board line...a place where posts must be moved to. :thumb:

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by Fundad »

I still think it's in our best interest to be proactive in educating people about ideas like evolution and the dangers of following a life based on beliefs that are probably not true. I still don't see why ANYONE would ever want to base major life decisions on what is probably the wrong information.
It's not any ones business to educate anyone, on Religion or anti Religion issues. Everyone is able make up their own opinions on such subjects, without unrequested advice. (this goes for both sides of the arguement!). Not singling you out here Mike, but I see a growing trend nationwide , of people that think others are unable to think for themselves, and that is a fallacy IMHO.

Fundad

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by gbin »

gulo wrote:... i'm outta here, which i imagine was the intended result...
My intention was clearly stated quite a while ago...
gbin wrote:... you can probably count on me and others here calling you on it when you misrepresent science. If that bothers you, tough.
True, you were more recently casting unfounded aspersions on unnamed (and likely fictional) scientists rather than on science itself, but close enough.

So does this mean you won't be taking me herping? :(
chad ks wrote:... You just HATE online conflict and controversy don't ya?
I can take it or leave it. The issue here, as I've told you before both publicly and privately, is that I reserve for myself the right to decide how I'll waste my time, and I choose not to waste it on game-playing.

Gerry

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by chad ks »

So does this mean you won't be taking me herping? :(
I realize that this question wasn't directed at me, but my answer is definitely and it would be my pleasure. Maybe spring of 2011? I think we'd have a lot to talk about. :thumb:
I can take it or leave it. The issue here, as I've told you before both publicly and privately, is that I reserve for myself the right to decide how I'll waste my time, and I choose not to waste it on game-playing.
Well, you have nothing to indicate that this is a game, and even if it is a game I don't see any harm in playing along if by doing so we all get a good rebuffing of our own thoughts while throwing in the hardcore risk of actually learning something new...Cheers Gerry!

:beer:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by gbin »

chad ks wrote:
So does this mean you won't be taking me herping? :(
I realize that this question wasn't directed at me, but my answer is definitely and it would be my pleasure. Maybe spring of 2011? I think we'd have a lot to talk about. :thumb:
Chad, I just may take you up on that! I can't imagine how either of us could be anywhere near as annoying in person as we sometimes are in the forum, but to be on the safe side... Could we agree in advance to restrict the amount of time we spend talking philosophy, semantics, etc., and to have alcohol on hand so we can imbibe whenever we indulge? ;)

Gerry

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by chad ks »

gbin wrote:
chad ks wrote:
So does this mean you won't be taking me herping? :(
I realize that this question wasn't directed at me, but my answer is definitely and it would be my pleasure. Maybe spring of 2011? I think we'd have a lot to talk about. :thumb:
Chad, I just may take you up on that! I can't imagine how either of us could be anywhere near as annoying in person as we sometimes are in the forum, but to be on the safe side... Could we agree in advance to restrict the amount of time we spend talking philosophy, semantics, etc., and to have alcohol on hand so we can imbibe whenever we indulge? ;)

Gerry
Then what in the world would we possibly talk about?! lol. No, I'm just fine with restricting the conversation to herps if that would make you more comfortable...and I don't find anything about you annoying other than your tendency to avoid my sincere questions (by all means, ignore the rest ;) ). As long as the alcohol is in the form of our local brewery's Germans Hefe...I think I can abide! :lol:

stlouisdude
Posts: 419
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by stlouisdude »

When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was reffering to something sexual.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by Daryl Eby »

stlouisdude wrote:When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was reffering to something sexual.
That explains all the foreplay between Chad and Gerry. :lol:

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2441
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Daryl Eby wrote:
stlouisdude wrote:When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was reffering to something sexual.
That explains all the foreplay between Chad and Gerry. :lol:
I think you just gave everyone a mental image...that can't be UN-seen. :shock:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: So your spots are getting pounded ...

Post by gbin »

Daryl Eby wrote:
stlouisdude wrote:When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was reffering to something sexual.
That explains all the foreplay between Chad and Gerry. :lol:
Geez, and now we've even begun setting up our "first date"... :o

Gerry

Post Reply