[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just because something isn't called magic doesn't mean that people are not making the same kind of irrational assumptions that they would with supernatural or magical beliefs.

Both are irrational, and I never suggested otherwise. You claimed that in believing irrational things, people are envoking a belief in the supernatural. That's not true.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This fellow wrote about people needing to have these beliefs and I agree with him. I'm observing that some people replace their supernatural or magical beliefs with attributing irrational properties to modern day phenomena.

That similarity isn't lost on me, but conspiracy theories are not a belief in magic, which you initially proposed. Their arguments do not in any way invoke supernatural factors, however implausible they are.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, they don't believe a shaman with a voodoo doll can ruin their day, but they do easily adopt an unfounded belief that some secret cabal of shadow men could be able to put several tons of explosives into the World Trade Center and that these hundreds or thousands of people are able to keep such a secret for the past six years.

That's an entirely natural explanation of the WTC events, however implausible. No magic is invoked in that argument, so to say that it's magical or supernatural in nature is unfounded.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The WTC conspiracists don't call their ideas magic, but could their irrational beliefs be quantified as a magical belief? I think so.

Well, you're wrong. Creating a natural (yet implausible) explanation for those events is in no way equivalent to arbitrarily creating supernatural influences to those events.

[PluggyRug]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I work in the IT biz and I see the same thing every day when people call me and tell me this, that, or the other thing did something all on its own. Granted, they're in denial about their own actions, but these folks genuinely buy into the idea that computers are capable of making their own decisions.

Many years ago I made a magic wand for my daughter (school play).

I now carry that magic wand in my kit when I go out to fix someones computer. People actually believe that the computer fix was caused by my wand. A few magic spells incanted over the computer cements their beliefs.
I know there is no magic involved, but to convince them otherwise is futile. They absolutely believe that the computer is possessed and absolutely nothing they did caused the problem.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just because something isn't called magic doesn't mean that people are not making the same kind of irrational assumptions that they would with supernatural or magical beliefs.

Both are irrational, and I never suggested otherwise. You claimed that in believing irrational things, people are envoking a belief in the supernatural. That's not true.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This fellow wrote about people needing to have these beliefs and I agree with him. I'm observing that some people replace their supernatural or magical beliefs with attributing irrational properties to modern day phenomena.

That similarity isn't lost on me, but conspiracy theories are not a belief in magic, which you initially proposed. Their arguments do not in any way invoke supernatural factors, however implausible they are.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, they don't believe a shaman with a voodoo doll can ruin their day, but they do easily adopt an unfounded belief that some secret cabal of shadow men could be able to put several tons of explosives into the World Trade Center and that these hundreds or thousands of people are able to keep such a secret for the past six years.

That's an entirely natural explanation of the WTC events, however implausible. No magic is invoked in that argument, so to say that it's magical or supernatural in nature is unfounded.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The WTC conspiracists don't call their ideas magic, but could their irrational beliefs be quantified as a magical belief? I think so.

Well, you're wrong. Creating a natural (yet implausible) explanation for those events is in no way equivalent to arbitrarily creating supernatural influences to those events.

Never mind. You can't get past the word "magic" to see what I'm talking about.

[romanP]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just because something isn't called magic doesn't mean that people are not making the same kind of irrational assumptions that they would with supernatural or magical beliefs.

Both are irrational, and I never suggested otherwise. You claimed that in believing irrational things, people are envoking a belief in the supernatural. That's not true.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This fellow wrote about people needing to have these beliefs and I agree with him. I'm observing that some people replace their supernatural or magical beliefs with attributing irrational properties to modern day phenomena.

That similarity isn't lost on me, but conspiracy theories are not a belief in magic, which you initially proposed. Their arguments do not in any way invoke supernatural factors, however implausible they are.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, they don't believe a shaman with a voodoo doll can ruin their day, but they do easily adopt an unfounded belief that some secret cabal of shadow men could be able to put several tons of explosives into the World Trade Center and that these hundreds or thousands of people are able to keep such a secret for the past six years.

That's an entirely natural explanation of the WTC events, however implausible. No magic is invoked in that argument, so to say that it's magical or supernatural in nature is unfounded.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The WTC conspiracists don't call their ideas magic, but could their irrational beliefs be quantified as a magical belief? I think so.

Well, you're wrong. Creating a natural (yet implausible) explanation for those events is in no way equivalent to arbitrarily creating supernatural influences to those events.

I think Bart is actually attacking belief, not the idea of magic. I think he should be careful in walking that line, because it seems he is often guilty of believing things himself.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” -Robert Anton Wilson

The paradoxical thing is that I find myself believing in this quote. I am quite certain that belief is a dangerous thing. It's hard to be uncertain about such an apparently certain thing. It's even harder to be both certain and uncertain at the same time.

[romanP]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I work in the IT biz and I see the same thing every day when people call me and tell me this, that, or the other thing did something all on its own. Granted, they're in denial about their own actions, but these folks genuinely buy into the idea that computers are capable of making their own decisions.

Many years ago I made a magic wand for my daughter (school play).

I now carry that magic wand in my kit when I go out to fix someones computer. People actually believe that the computer fix was caused by my wand. A few magic spells incanted over the computer cements their beliefs.
I know there is no magic involved, but to convince them otherwise is futile. They absolutely believe that the computer is possessed and absolutely nothing they did caused the problem.

I don't think it's entirely beyond the scope of reality for that to be true. We're already at the point where our technology is becoming virtually indistiguishable from some kind of unexplainable magic. We still don't really know what things like electricity, a mind, consciousness, or a personality are, yet we use all of them to communicate every single day, with or without a computer. It's entirely possible that computers are developing a sort quasi-intelligence all on their own.

Despite having absorbed a lot of information about quantum mechanics over the past couple of years, I still have trouble understanding how it is that we'll soon be able to store 256GB on a piece of silicone the size of your thumbnail, when 20 years ago you could only fit 256kb in the same amount of space, and we were supposed to have hit a technological brick wall by now, by all theoretical predictions and models.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

I think Bart is actually attacking belief, not the idea of magic. I think he should be careful in walking that line, because it seems he is often guilty of believing things himself.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” -Robert Anton Wilson

The paradoxical thing is that I find myself believing in this quote. I am quite certain that belief is a dangerous thing. It's hard to be uncertain about such an apparently certain thing. It's even harder to be both certain and uncertain at the same time.

In this case I was narrowing my scope and pointing out that some people's beliefs in certain things parallel a belief in magic. There, BN - that's what I've been trying to say here.

They admantly adhere to their beliefs despite any number of factors that contradict their beliefs.

The WTC tinfoilers attribute a level of ability to the alleged conspiracists that defies reason and is therefore, frankly, supernatural by definition. Their need to rationalise the destruction of 9/11 with a less scary explanation than the truth leads them to commit to an ever-more complex belief that takes on the appearance of a cultish belief.

Like the author of the story said, the believers want to rationalize a world that they are almost powerless to affect.

Go to the blame-the-victim mentality that some people hold over various crimes - they need to blame the victim for somehow causing the crime because to face the fact that some people are capable of spontaneous, unprovoked evil scares the sheer hell out of them. Thinking that a victim provoked a crime makes them feel safer from similar crimes.

And I also disagree that belief is the death of intelligence.

I believe that healthy debate is instrumental in developing intelligence. Some people believe that there are subjects that should not be debated. Neither of us really has any substantial reason to assert either position past our beliefs.

People believe in justice.

And who would have it any other way?

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Never mind. You can't get past the word "magic" to see what I'm talking about.

I can understand perfectly what you're talking about, I just don't agree.

Your argument has been that a belief in [gun control, socialism, conspiracy theories] constitutes a belief in magic. You're wrong. None of those things constitute or imply a belief in magic whatsoever, however similar or comparable to magical beliefs they are.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Never mind. You can't get past the word "magic" to see what I'm talking about.

I can understand perfectly what you're talking about, I just don't agree.

Your argument has been that a belief in [gun control, socialism, conspiracy theories] constitutes a belief in magic. You're wrong. None of those things constitute or imply a belief in magic whatsoever, however similar or comparable to magical beliefs they are.

Where did I say this? Where?

[Blue_Nose]

First you concede you ment "parallels" instead of "is"

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

some people's beliefs in certain things parallel a belief in magic. There, BN - that's what I've been trying to say here.

and now you're going to be so dishonest as to deny you've not been arguing that those beliefs are in fact magical:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

rational people attribute magical qualities to so many inanimate objects

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Amazing how many people say this and actually believe that guns, all on their own, kill people.

It must be magic.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

could their irrational beliefs be quantified as a magical belief? I think so.

Piss off.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

In this case I was narrowing my scope and pointing out that some people's beliefs in certain things parallel a belief in magic. There, BN - that's what I've been trying to say here.

Belief in magic or belief in flying pink elephants isn't really different. They're both beliefs.

$1:

The WTC tinfoilers attribute a level of ability to the alleged conspiracists that defies reason and is therefore, frankly, supernatural by definition. Their need to rationalise the destruction of 9/11 with a less scary explanation than the truth leads them to commit to an ever-more complex belief that takes on the appearance of a cultish belief.

Frankly, both the reality and the fantastical theory are pretty scary. Either one ends in the same result.

$1:

Go to the blame-the-victim mentality that some people hold over various crimes - they need to blame the victim for somehow causing the crime because to face the fact that some people are capable of spontaneous, unprovoked evil scares the sheer hell out of them. Thinking that a victim provoked a crime makes them feel safer from similar crimes.

This is why I said you should be careful of criticising people for holding beliefs. You yourself believe in something just as supernatural, whether it be the idea of evil or that the world trade centre was destroyed for no reason at all. Things without reason do not have form, and thus cannot exist. The idea of evil is little more than pure superstition.

$1:

And I also disagree that belief is the death of intelligence.

I believe that healthy debate is instrumental in developing intelligence.

Healthy debate can't happen between two parties holding their own certitude about a given topic. In order for healthy debate to occur, both parties have to be willing to give up their certainty, or else the dialogue can't progress.

$1:

Some people believe that there are subjects that should not be debated.

That is precisely why belief is the death of intelligence.

$1:

Neither of us really has any substantial reason to assert either position past our beliefs.

I do my best to not believe anything.

$1:

People believe in justice.

I don't believe in justice. I think it's necessary, but I don't think it's always there when you need it.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

First you concede you ment "parallels" instead of "is"

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

some people's beliefs in certain things parallel a belief in magic. There, BN - that's what I've been trying to say here.

and now you're going to be so dishonest as to deny you've not been arguing that those beliefs are in fact magical:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

rational people attribute magical qualities to so many inanimate objects

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Amazing how many people say this and actually believe that guns, all on their own, kill people.

It must be magic.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

could their irrational beliefs be quantified as a magical belief? I think so.

Piss off.

Whatever.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

The idea of evil is little more than pure superstition.

The idea of Satan may well be superstition.

Evil, however, is quite real.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

The idea of evil is little more than pure superstition.

The idea of Satan may well be superstition.

Evil, however, is quite real.

This doesn't prove that evil exists, it just makes an irrational, emotional appeal. The idea of evil is a purely human, social construct.

If a lion takes down a zebra, the herd of zebras may be momentarily frightened, but by tomorrow they will have forgotten and gone about their way. They will probably not think of the lion as having been evil for doing his deed, because the lion was only looking for food. This is the natural order of life. Stuff gets killed or dies and gets eaten by other stuff, and it's never pretty.

[BartSimpson]

The lion kills to eat.

Evil people kill just because it suits them.

There's no small number of serial killers who've been found to be perfectly sane when they committed their crimes. They committed the crimes because they enjoyed killing.

It doesn't make them possessed or anything, but it does make them, quite simply, evil.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The lion kills to eat.

Evil people kill just because it suits them.

Eating suits the lion. Without eating, the lions dies.

The act of war may very likely have been a part of our lineage of species since apes started living in groups. It has been observed that one tribe of apes will attack another, beat some of the males to death and steal all of its females and children. Does this make apes evil? If so, then every single person that has ever been trained for military combat should be considered evil.

One person might kill another because it gives them a feeling of satisfaction. People need to be happy in order to survive, so a murderer might also be fulfilling a biological need. Why that biological need arises could be a result of any combination of factors, which may be different for every single person that has ever committed the act. Thus, we give the form a reason.

Evil, on the other hand, does no such thing. It assumes the position of no reason, and thus cannot exist.

$1:

There's no small number of serial killers who've been found to be perfectly sane when they committed their crimes. They committed the crimes because they enjoyed killing.

It doesn't make them possessed or anything, but it does make them, quite simply, evil.

Nothing is ever that simple, and your saying so betrays your belief in evil, further proving that holding certitude means the end of thought on that aspect of existence.

Does anyone really know what causes a person to become a serial killer in the first place? No credible scientist would conclude that the answer is "evil", because evil is a superstitious idea that comes from religion. It is a human, social construct.