4 ms·

Also, I will launch into a philosophical discussion of existence from a purely materialistic point of view while ignoring the religious dimension that is almost

by cicero 7y ago

Also, I will launch into a philosophical discussion of existence from a purely materialistic point of view while ignoring the religious dimension that is almost completely universal to human experience throughout history. I can get away with that because it has become the dominant mode of thought in our materialistic age.

Retra 7y ago
The religious dimension is not universal. The materialistic point of view is. That's why there a many contradictory (and self-contradictory) religions, and only one material world.
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep religious flamewar off this site. We've had to ask you this before.
mistermann 7y ago
"As striking as are the varieties of religious experience, they pale beside the variety of material things that can possibly exist in the universe." Spoken with the self-confidence of someone who's never had anything remotely approaching a religious experience, or deems it worthy of investigation by those with Serious Minds, whose chest will swell with pride as he solemnly observes the traditional a minute of silence once a year as satisfactory repayment to those who've laid down their lives in past wars to his benefit, before carrying on mocking a sacred belief that most of those people likely believed in.
- Retra 7y ago
  Oh, Irony. Those people in graves? They were put there by material impacts. Serious material impacts. That Serious People do pay a lot of attention to. Because the consequences are real, unambiguous, and repeatedly demonstrable.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    I'm not sure I see the irony. Nothing you've said is contrary to what I've written. Perhaps there is some sort of a miscommunication here....have you somehow reached the conclusion that I've asserted that material reality doesn't exist, or is unimportant? Meta: Oh my the throttling is especially strong today, I wonder if the "too fast" algorithm got a little fine tuning to reduce the amount of wrong think getting through the filter. While we lack the ability to articulate a defense or substantiation of our religion, we more than make up for it with the vigor to downvote, on a platform that censors those with dissenting opinions.
    - Retra 7y ago
      The irony is in your own self-confidence, and the idea that strongly-held beliefs are beyond criticism, but that the author's are somehow not.
      - dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting such antagonistic comments to HN? You've done it a lot. That's a drag, and it's not in the spirit of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep religious flamewar off this site.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Honest question dang: I assume this would also apply to political flamewars? When a flame war arises when someone asking for clarification regarding a (typically pejorative) claim, is guilt or innocence based on relative epistemological truth, or popularity of the idea? As long as one's words are ideologically consistent with the majority opinion, it seems like the HN guidelines have little bearing on acceptability of comments. But go against the grain in the slightest, even asking how someone knows of what they claim to be true, and it seems it won't be long before a warning is received. Completely misrepresent what someone has said, to the degree of pure fantasy? Perfectly fine. "Do not read minds" would be a positive addition to the guidelines imho. This particular exchange may not be the best example, but on certain topics it seems like anything short of full agreement is no longer tolerated around here. Arguing in bad faith is one thing, not being allowed to disagree is something else entirely.
    - dang 7y ago
      Yes, it applies to political flamewars. I'm not sure what do make of the rest of your comment. I'd need to see specific links.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294 If history is any guide, I will be the one at blame. But compare the words written there against the HN guidelines - who is behaving inappropriately? If one disagrees, or dares ask a question, and people lose their tempers because you're challenging their orthodoxy, who is at fault? If you were to take a careful read through the words written in that entire thread and ones like it, you might notice a recurring pattern of people knowing things that they have no way of knowing. Knowing what people have done in secret. Knowing what people are thinking. Knowing what people's motives for actions are. Knowing what people really mean, even though their words say something else. If you're tired of ideological flame wars, consider whether people making things up might have something to do with it.
dang 7y ago
Please keep religious flamewar off this site.

by cicero 7y ago

Retra 7y ago

The religious dimension is not universal. The materialistic point of view is. That's why there a many contradictory (and self-contradictory) religions, and only one material world.

dang 7y ago
Please keep religious flamewar off this site. We've had to ask you this before.

mistermann 7y ago

"As striking as are the varieties of religious experience, they pale beside the variety of material things that can possibly exist in the universe." Spoken with the self-confidence of someone who's never had anything remotely approaching a religious experience, or deems it worthy of investigation by those with Serious Minds, whose chest will swell with pride as he solemnly observes the traditional a minute of silence once a year as satisfactory repayment to those who've laid down their lives in past wars to his benefit, before carrying on mocking a sacred belief that most of those people likely believed in.

Retra 7y ago
Oh, Irony. Those people in graves? They were put there by material impacts. Serious material impacts. That Serious People do pay a lot of attention to. Because the consequences are real, unambiguous, and repeatedly demonstrable.
- mistermann 7y ago
  I'm not sure I see the irony. Nothing you've said is contrary to what I've written. Perhaps there is some sort of a miscommunication here....have you somehow reached the conclusion that I've asserted that material reality doesn't exist, or is unimportant? Meta: Oh my the throttling is especially strong today, I wonder if the "too fast" algorithm got a little fine tuning to reduce the amount of wrong think getting through the filter. While we lack the ability to articulate a defense or substantiation of our religion, we more than make up for it with the vigor to downvote, on a platform that censors those with dissenting opinions.
  - Retra 7y ago
    The irony is in your own self-confidence, and the idea that strongly-held beliefs are beyond criticism, but that the author's are somehow not.
    - dang 7y ago
      Would you please stop posting such antagonistic comments to HN? You've done it a lot. That's a drag, and it's not in the spirit of this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Please keep religious flamewar off this site.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Honest question dang: I assume this would also apply to political flamewars? When a flame war arises when someone asking for clarification regarding a (typically pejorative) claim, is guilt or innocence based on relative epistemological truth, or popularity of the idea? As long as one's words are ideologically consistent with the majority opinion, it seems like the HN guidelines have little bearing on acceptability of comments. But go against the grain in the slightest, even asking how someone knows of what they claim to be true, and it seems it won't be long before a warning is received. Completely misrepresent what someone has said, to the degree of pure fantasy? Perfectly fine. "Do not read minds" would be a positive addition to the guidelines imho. This particular exchange may not be the best example, but on certain topics it seems like anything short of full agreement is no longer tolerated around here. Arguing in bad faith is one thing, not being allowed to disagree is something else entirely.
  - dang 7y ago
    Yes, it applies to political flamewars. I'm not sure what do make of the rest of your comment. I'd need to see specific links.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294 If history is any guide, I will be the one at blame. But compare the words written there against the HN guidelines - who is behaving inappropriately? If one disagrees, or dares ask a question, and people lose their tempers because you're challenging their orthodoxy, who is at fault? If you were to take a careful read through the words written in that entire thread and ones like it, you might notice a recurring pattern of people knowing things that they have no way of knowing. Knowing what people have done in secret. Knowing what people are thinking. Knowing what people's motives for actions are. Knowing what people really mean, even though their words say something else. If you're tired of ideological flame wars, consider whether people making things up might have something to do with it.

dang 7y ago

Please keep religious flamewar off this site.