The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread

[Rirenil Masdo]

I'm no expert on the current MLP but I do think he just found away to finally put ponies in this discussion.

rules of the internet:  http://rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

(a summarized version): http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet

[LigH]

Especially Rule #34 in all derivations. But this is a restricted forum... I should not have mentioned it. Am I a troll now?

[Eonwind]

Yes, I agree with that, however, try to tell a *"born again christian", baptist, or "seventh day adventist" that god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy or within one's subjective reality, and not in objective, scientific reality. This is not what they preach. The problems that exist due to people mixing their theistic beliefs with every day life ( ie. hospitals refusing certain types of services, restaurants refusing to serve homosexuals, government offices spending tax payer's money on religious statues, discrimination against non-believers or different believers) are not isolated to some philosophical plane. These are real world issues.

When people are discriminated against for being pagans, non-believers, or those who are not-saved, do you think these folks are referring to a subjective or philosophical belief in god?

Wait, wait ... I haven't said god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy, I said the definition of god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy. For me god is real (where real is yet another philosophical concept) and it's clear for you it's not and I have no problem accepting that.

If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.
That said there's something very important to say: a human being cannot separate its faith from his ordinary life because they are not separate things. If I am christian, I am christian here, at my working place, when I sleep, when I practice sport ... because it's part of my own being and cannot be put away. This of course does not mean I can't work, talk, cooperate, live with people with a different religion or no atheist. Nothing prevent me from doing that and people shielding being their religion for doing that are just plain wrong imo.

Regarding the heart, what is the difference between the "heart" and the "mind"? The heart sounds to me like its a subset of the mind.  We perceive emotions and process logical thought in the brain, don't we? If they are both perceived with the brain, then how to you call one set of neural reactions heart, and another set of neural reactions, mind?

( ^ This question is meant as a friendly challenge. Honestly, I have not really tried to pick it apart myself yet. )

Thank you for your well thought out response.

Glad to give it a try
Speaking about the differences between heart and mind we're still in the field of philosophy so the concept of brain and neuronal reaction don't help us much being mostly scientific stuff, so I would leave them out of this specific discussion.
As I defined the heart the seat of human emotions I would define the mind the place of our creativity and the intellect where our highest and abstract ideas are elaborated, the seat where logic reside. However even for this philosophical system the "heart" and the "mind" are not separate entities that live on their own, the work together and affect each other, they cannot live on their own. Other two pieces are missing: the body and the soul: in this specific philosophy the quartet body-mind-heath-soul make up the whole human being but neither of them can be separated from a person: take one and you destroy the person as a whole.

Now considering the same matter in scientific terms: the heart is "simply" a muscle whose purpose is pumping the blood. The mind as term doesn't really exist, perhaps it was referred in the past but afaik even psychology now use different terms and definitions, we have however a central neuronal system (aka brain) which is divided in two hemispheres and we know emotional responses use to activate the right hemisphere while logic, math language (iirc) use to activate the left one.

@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple

[Illysia]

@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple

While I have points to make here, I just have to accept that I'll have to get back to you later on this. I am still recovering from getting fillings and staring down the barrel of a root canal tomorrow. I am not going to be any good in a deep debate for a bit. Getting poked in the mouth with sharp needles is not good for thinking about anything else later. 

[Rigwyn]

Wait, wait ... I haven't said god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy, I said the definition of god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy. For me god is real (where real is yet another philosophical concept) and it's clear for you it's not and I have no problem accepting that.

For clarification, I said god was undefined - like a null pointer. Until its defined, you can't really do anything with it.

If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.

Different christan groups have very different ideas on this. Exploring this will turn into a gigantic mess rather quickly. In addition, not all christian groups will agree on which groups count as christians.

Glad to give it a try
Speaking about the differences between heart and mind we're still in the field of philosophy so the concept of brain and neuronal reaction don't help us much being mostly scientific stuff, so I would leave them out of this specific discussion.

Neurons are just a part of the body. I think this is an area where philosophy and science overlap. If you can't talk about how the body reacts to stimulus, then you can't talk about the body or brain either. I would agree though, that it's better to keep the technical stuff as light as possible.

[Eonwind]

If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.

Different christan groups have very different ideas on this. Exploring this will turn into a gigantic mess rather quickly. In addition, not all christian groups will agree on which groups count as christians.

I will go back and rely on the definition of christian: "A follower of Jesus the Christ". So anyone claiming to (and willing to) follow his teaching can claim to be a christian. Full stop.

Now relying on the definition there are certainty on the subject: evidence are Jesus has always had a welcoming behavior toward the neighbor. Discrimination was not part of his teaching but rather the opposite. So I can safely say discrimination is not a chiristian behavior. Full stop.

Gandhi once said he would be christian if he hadn't known the christians. This show that while the message brought by Christ has a deep moral value a lot of those claiming to follow His teaching not only fail that but fail in a epic way.

Neurons are just a part of the body. I think this is an area where philosophy and science overlap. If you can't talk about how the body reacts to stimulus, then you can't talk about the body or brain either. I would agree though, that it's better to keep the technical stuff as light as possible.

No, no and no. Sorry but here you're just wrong. I can and it's plain legit to ignore scientific stuff in philosophical discussion as long as human experience is not ignored as well. Ignoring the human experience is the only valid counterpoint to a philosophical thesis.

Really Rigwyn this is turning out in a "mute to a deaf" conversation, if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong like saying: "Q: What is the biggest city in europe? A: The apple's color is green." 
Albeit I'm not a guru myself, I would like to suggest you in a friendly way to study more what philosophy is otherwise a philosophical conversation is hardly sustainable.

@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple

While I have points to make here, I just have to accept that I'll have to get back to you later on this. I am still recovering from getting fillings and staring down the barrel of a root canal tomorrow. I am not going to be any good in a deep debate for a bit. Getting poked in the mouth with sharp needles is not good for thinking about anything else later. 

That hurts! One of my parent had to do the same recently and it was a real pain... take your time, recover yourself and best luck

[Rigwyn]

I don't really feel like digging up a lot of references here, but I can if needed. Your definition of what a christian is may work for you personally, but contrary to what you would  expect, it is not universal. Again, this topic right here gets ugly if you dig into it.

According to catholic.com, mormons are not christians:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism

And Jevoha Witnesses are not christians:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=823767&highlight=jehova+witnesses

But the mormons say they are:
http://www.mormon.org/faq/mormon-christian

And so do the Jehova Witnesses:
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/#insight[search_id]=6ce8eb24-30b5-427e-956b-367e9ca1d1f3&insight[search_result_index]=9

We have yet to compare Fundamentalists, Seventh Day Adventists and our friends the Appalachian Snake Handlers. ( Who would probably condemn everyone but themselves xD )  \o/

As for the rest, I don't have time right now, but will review later.

[LigH]

Just a simple chart: What kind of Jew are you?

[Eonwind]

I don't really feel like digging up a lot of references here, but I can if needed. Your definition of what a christian is may work for you personally, but contrary to what you would  expect, it is not universal. Again, this topic right here gets ugly if you dig into it.
[...]

Words have a semantic, from each word semantic comes their meaning, and I have already said what the semantic of the christian word is and it's semantic is universal (at least in the known world of today ) you can call it a standard).

According to catholic.com, mormons are not christians:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism

while I don't want to discuss myself whether they are christian or not as a whole you can clearly read in the first link the thesis is in fact based upon the the definition of the term: if they are compatible or not with the historic Christian faith.

However it must be noted that being christian is one thing and it's not the same as being a catholic, a mormon, orthodox, ... meaning you could be a christian but not being part of the mormon community or catholic, ... requisites may vary and one could be a christian without even be part of one of those communities... still one could claim to be part of one of those community and still not to be a christian given how he lives his life.

[Rirenil Masdo]

Am I a troll now?

no, if you were, you'd have simply linked to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3oPJQ3yWR8 and been on your merry way.

[Rigwyn]

Words have a semantic, from each word semantic comes their meaning, and I have already said what the semantic of the christian word is and it's semantic is universal (at least in the known world of today ) you can call it a standard).

I'll concede to your definition for now.

while I don't want to discuss myself whether they are christian or not as a whole you can clearly read in the first link the thesis is in fact based upon the the definition of the term: if they are compatible or not with the historic Christian faith.

Again, I really don't want to go down this road. For the sake of avoiding this, I won't argue the point.


Getting back on track now...

if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong...

Honestly, I've never heard this argument before - that you cannot counter a philosophical point with a scientific point. Would you care point out where you got this rule? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I'm just searching for some supporting material to back that up for my own edification.

[Eonwind]

if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong...

Honestly, I've never heard this argument before - that you cannot counter a philosophical point with a scientific point. Would you care point out where you got this rule? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I'm just searching for some supporting material to back that up for my own edification.

Because philosophy and science are based on different foundations, the same term used for one can mean a totally different thing for the other. Some terms are not even defined in one of the two. Trying to make them co-exist inside the same thesis or worse trying to disproof one using the other can lead to epic fails

Two examples:
1) [science] while talking about the heart muscle one comes up saying/asking about the centre of human emotions, the scientist can rightfully say "what?? geez I'm talking about the blood pump what are you talking about?!"
2) [philosophy] think of what happened in 17th century when the catholic church was forcefully supporting the heliocentric thesis and using the bible as a proof. We all know how this turned out in the end --> epic fail.

If you're looking for references I will try to provide them but it will take me a bit more time (iirc there's some interesting theorem around talking about a similar problem), however this was the result I come up with after several years past trying to push one against the other or trying to rely on one to come up with answers for questions meant for the other.

[Eonwind]

Karl Popper  formulated many interesting philosophical theories the falsification being one of the most interesting. And using the falsification method we surprisingly discover a lot of metaphysics theories cannot be falsified. This show how difficult is for science (especially for science) and philosophy to play on the same playground.

[Illysia]

That hurts! One of my parent had to do the same recently and it was a real pain... take your time, recover yourself and best luck

Thanks. I'll jump back in when I'm sure I can keep a complex thought straight.

[Rigwyn]

while talking about the heart muscle one comes up saying/asking about the centre of human emotions, the scientist can rightfully say "what?? geez I'm talking about the blood pump what are you talking about?!"

This is just a matter of equivocation on the word heart, but fine, I get your point. If the discussion is meant to be philosophical, then philosophical terminology should be assumed. I was just busting your chops with the bit about the heart.  :p

2) [philosophy] think of what happened in 17th century when the catholic church was forcefully supporting the heliocentric thesis and using the bible as a proof. We all know how this turned out in the end --> epic fail.

Well, this is my main point of contention with religious ideology - when its taken into *real life* ( Sorry, I'm not sure what else to call it ) and treated not as a religious truth, but as an absolute truth. ( Again, the terms used here are awkward.)

In the case of Galileo ( if that's what you are referring to ), it looks like it was a case of "Might makes Right".  xD

"Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -  Thucydides