Are we headed towards a new dark ages?

[slobake]

I know it is hard to avoid with this subject but we need to be careful to avoid politics and religion here. I have faith that we can do it.

 

[ArtechnikA]

Consider placebos.

I don't like placebos but they're better than nothing...

 

[slobake]

I think I know what you're asking (and that you know my stance on it), but the way you phrased this question made me want to add something.

Consider placebos. You know, that people believing that they're being taken care of actually helps them recover. This is a very.. magical process, seemingly. But here's the thing - we can measure it. We have data showing that placebos work. Shouldn't the scientific medical society embrace this (as they embrace other medication) and explore making placebos part of treatments? Or at least do studies to find what is it about placebos that makes them effective, and embrace that?

Medical professional today accept that making patients feel welcome and taken care of helps them. They will do their best to let patients get visited, let their families bring items from home that would make patients feel at home, hold their hand.

We may not know the ins and outs of why this is, but it doesn't mean we can't use it.

Science can find out what works and what doesn't. What's true and what isn't is important but not as hands-on. I don't know if you considered this when you asked the question. We could use science to employ intangibles, whatever you mean by that, to better our lives. Or, if we're employing them already, confirm that they're effective and maybe improve this effectiveness.

My comments were not about conversations on a certain subject we have had in the lobby. Is that what you meant?
The intangibles I was thinking of are more about the general well being of individuals. For instance Van Gogh was an amazing painter but his personal life was a mess. We recognize his great talent as a painter but what about the rest of his life. Do we care more about people as a whole or about just one aspect of who they are. I am guessing that painting was Van Goghs' life. Where does that leave us? Hey I don't know but it is something to consider.
Does success equal getting recognized by the world for what you have done or does success mean something else? Does an unknown person who quietly goes about helping and/or understanding others while encouraging more people to do the same have more influence on the general well being of the world than an amazing painter?

 

[Bocete]

My comments were not about conversations on a certain subject we have had in the lobby. Is that what you meant?
The intangibles I was thinking of are more about the general well being of individuals. For instance Van Gogh was an amazing painter but his personal life was a mess. We recognize his great talent as a painter but what about the rest of his life. Do we care more about people as a whole or about just one aspect of who they are. I am guessing that painting was Van Goghs' life. Where does that leave us? Hey I don't know but it is something to consider.
Does success equal getting recognized by the world for what you have done or does success mean something else? Does an unknown person who quietly goes about helping and/or understanding others while encouraging more people to do the same have more influence on the general well being of the world than an amazing painter?

I wasn't talking about our Lobby discussions, not directly. I was thinking about alternative medicine as opposed to placebo in order to show that we can still use science to draw a line between poorly understood things. It's an interesting thing.

But that had nothing to do with your question, I see now Carry on.

 

[bluesblaster]

I don't like placebos but they're better than nothing...

very clever

 

[Gaolee]

Sometimes you have to give up a part of yourself to excel at something else. It isn't always voluntary, either. Van Gogh is the perfect example of a flawed human whose personality was skewed brilliantly in one direction and a complete mess in other directions. I think of it in academic and occupational terms as well as social terms. There is a place in society for all kinds of aptitudes and abilities. The fact that one person is brilliant in an academic setting and another person is extremely practical shouldn't make one more valuable than the other. My take is that we all learn and approach the world a little differently, and those differences mean that as a whole, we are all better off. The brilliant academic may be very good at figuring out how to do certain things that will benefit mankind, while the practical person may be very good at what we consider more mundane things that the academic is hopeless at. We do ourselves a disservice when we focus too much on academic brilliance and don't make room for vocational and practical things.

I'm going to butcher this because I don't remember the exact wording, but there was a bit of wisdom that goes something like this: A society that tolerates mediocrity in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted occupation, but disdains excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a mundane occupation will have neither theories nor pipes that hold water.

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Bret Easton Ellis calls this Post-Empire.

"Empire is the US from roughly WWII to a little after 9/11. It was at the height of its power, its prestige, and its economic worth. Then it lost a lot of those things. In the face of technology and social media, the mask of pride has been slowly eradicated. That empirical attitude of believing you're better than everyone—that you're above everything—and trying to give the impression that you have no problems. Post-empire is just about being yourself. It's showing the reality rather than obscuring things in reams and reams of meaning."​

 

[slobake]

Bret Easton Ellis calls this Post-Empire.

"Empire is the US from roughly WWII to a little after 9/11. It was at the height of its power, its prestige, and its economic worth. Then it lost a lot of those things. In the face of technology and social media, the mask of pride has been slowly eradicated. That empirical attitude of believing you're better than everyone—that you're above everything—and trying to give the impression that you have no problems. Post-empire is just about being yourself. It's showing the reality rather than obscuring things in reams and reams of meaning."​

I like post-empire better.

 

[ArtechnikA]

I like post-empire better.

Which reminds me - there's all manner of post-apocalyptic fiction (pandemic, nuclear winter, vampires, zombies, global winter...).
Doesn't that make this the "pre-apocalyptic era" ?

 

[socialleper]

This post is possibly the best post on the thread, up until the point where you try to characterize creationism strictly in young earth creationism terms. What about old earth creationism? I'm a big Hendrix fan. But someone saying that Hendrix and Britney Spears are both pop artists and the same would be insulting to me. Maybe they are both pop artists, but they're definitely not the same. Old earth creationism contends, needless to say, that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands of years old. Having creationism painted in such broad terms in that it is often characterized as only young earth creationism is really very frustrating to see so much.

That's fair; so let's talk about that. I'm unfamiliar with a difference between "young Earth" or "old Earth" Creationists, so please fill me in on the differences.

Young Earth beliefs are easily disproved. Radioactive decay and deep space telescopes tell us that we are looking in terms of billions of years not thousands.
If Old Earth ideas are sort of a long term Intelligent Design thing, I might be able to deal with something where a long chain of events were set into motion on purpose as opposed to by accident. I'm agnostic, so I'm willing to say that humans still have a lot to learn about the nature of the universe. That said, if it is still Genesis oriented, I can disprove it in a paragraph or two.

So it isn't to be bigoted that I say that people that don't accept evolution demonstrate lowered intellectual standards, its that the Young Earth/Genesis model is so full of holes, and lack any sort of verifiable data, that to lend them any credence is frightening. Up until the last century, illiteracy was the norm, so I can understand how such ideas existed for so long. But with access to even the most basic information today, ideas like Adam and Eve can only possibly be view as myths.

 

[Rocker949]

That's fair; so let's talk about that. I'm unfamiliar with a difference between "young Earth" or "old Earth" Creationists, so please fill me in on the differences.

Young Earth beliefs are easily disproved. Radioactive decay and deep space telescopes tell us that we are looking in terms of billions of years not thousands.
If Old Earth ideas are sort of a long term Intelligent Design thing, I might be able to deal with something where a long chain of events were set into motion on purpose as opposed to by accident. I'm agnostic, so I'm willing to say that humans still have a lot to learn about the nature of the universe. That said, if it is still Genesis oriented, I can disprove it in a paragraph or two.

So it isn't to be bigoted that I say that people that don't accept evolution demonstrate lowered intellectual standards, its that the Young Earth/Genesis model is so full of holes, and lack any sort of verifiable data, that to lend them any credence is frightening. Up until the last century, illiteracy was the norm, so I can understand how such ideas existed for so long. But with access to even the most basic information today, ideas like Adam and Eve can only possibly be view as myths.

I'll try to be as generic as I can and just offer one example (using Wikipedia.) Otherwise, discussions like this veer off into topics which can't be discussed. So, I'll just offer this, and you can do with it as you will. I will add, however, that I agree that young earth beliefs can be easily disproved. It's the lumping of old and young earth creationism together which I have to object to. Once again, I see this all the time. Getting back to my example, to me personally it's just as insulting as saying being a Britney Spears fan and Jimi Hendrix fan is the same thing. Nevertheless, I do realize no insults were intended.

Hugh Ross (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[socialleper]

I'll try to be as generic as I can and just offer one example (using Wikipedia.) Otherwise, discussions like this veer off into topics which can't be discussed. So, I'll just offer this, and you can do with it as you will. I will add, however, that I agree that young earth beliefs can be easily disproved. It's the lumping of old and young earth creationism together which I have to object to. Once again, I see this all the time. Getting back to my example, to me personally it's just as insulting as saying being a Britney Spears fan and Jimi Hendrix fan is the same thing. Nevertheless, I do realize no insults were intended.

Hugh Ross (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is important to the topic because it almost looks like what recovering alcoholics call bargaining. Finding away to bend things to better suit them rather than accept their mistake. That wikipedia page is very careful not to mention whether or not Hugh Ross endorses the Genesis idea of humans starting with Adam and Eve, or that humans started as humans. Both a simple examination of the Bible and genetics demonstrates that this narrative is completely impossible and unsupported by any data.
This sort of non-data driven thinking is part of the over all possibility that the US (I'm an American so I can't speak to the state anyone else's nation) is skidding towards a collapse born of intellectual regression, which could have broader implications, leading to another Dark Age.

 

[slobake]

 

[slobake]

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue sky's from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?



And did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?



How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
And how we found
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.



Pink Floyd "Wish You Were Here"

 

[Rocker949]

This is important to the topic because it almost looks like what recovering alcoholics call bargaining. Finding away to bend things to better suit them rather than accept their mistake. That wikipedia page is very careful not to mention whether or not Hugh Ross endorses the Genesis idea of humans starting with Adam and Eve, or that humans started as humans. Both a simple examination of the Bible and genetics demonstrates that this narrative is completely impossible and unsupported by any data.
This sort of non-data driven thinking is part of the over all possibility that the US (I'm an American so I can't speak to the state anyone else's nation) is skidding towards a collapse born of intellectual regression, which could have broader implications, leading to another Dark Age.

You really are being insulting now. I posted the Wikipedia link because that is usually considered a fairly harmless source. If you want to know how Hugh Ross really thinks, however, you might want to actually go to his site, read his books, watch videos of him, etc. That Wikipedia article wasn't even being very favorable to Hugh Ross, in case you didn't notice, and it appears you didn't. I am done with this. Even if I didn't have severe weather to contend with right now, I would have no interest at all in discussing this further. If you think what I have been posting, though, is some kind of mistake, I hardly know what to say. I had assumed that you had an open mind, but obviously you do not. Once again, I am not interested in a debate or arguing, even under the best of conditions. So, adios. I am putting you on ignore, btw.

 

[socialleper]

^^^^
"Stay, you don't always know where you stand, Till you know that you won't run away"

Oh well.

 

[slobake]

^ This is why it is best not to talk about religion here. Not blaming you Rocker but the topic often creates issues. We can talk about these things in the lobby. There is the Atheist Bass Players Club, As an Agnostic Anything, Ask a Jesus Freak Anything and several others that deal with the subject of religion. Even there it is best if we stay respectful.
If anyone wants to talk about religion further they can P.M me or join us in the lobby.
To be clear this is not a criticism about you Rocker but an attempt on my part to direct people to the best place for discussions about faith.
If you haven't guessed already you can see what I think about this over there.
Thanks my friends

 

[jetgraphics]

[Avoiding political controversy flag on]
If you really want to get facts that refute much of what you're led to believe, I suggest taking a few days to read law (statutes) at your local county courthouse law library.
Also look up the legal definitions for the following term pairs.
. . .
❏ national v. citizen
❏ sovereign v. subject
❏ individual v. person
❏ inhabitant v. resident
❏ domicile v. residence
❏ natural liberty v. civil liberty
❏ personal liberty v. political liberty
❏ private property v. estate (real and personal property)
❏ absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
. . .
And last, but not least, look up the definition for the "republican form of government."
(No, it's not a "constitutional republic.")


But if you do go to the courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

 

[Rocker949]

^ This is why it is best not to talk about religion here. Not blaming you Rocker but the topic often creates issues. We can talk about these things in the lobby. There is the Atheist Bass Players Club, As an Agnostic Anything, Ask a Jesus Freak Anything and several others that deal with the subject of religion. Even there it is best if we stay respectful.
If anyone wants to talk about religion further they can P.M me or join us in the lobby.
To be clear this is not a criticism about you Rocker but an attempt on my part to direct people to the best place for discussions about faith.
If you haven't guessed already you can see what I think about this over there.
Thanks my friends

Slobake, I respect what you have to say and even agree with most of what the person who objected to my post said. However, it does appear that I am being misinterpreted by everyone. This is probably my own fault since I do seem to have a problem with not being articulate enough. All I was doing was trying to clarify that there is a tremendous difference between old earth and young earth creationism. Plus, in posting a Wikipedia article, I wasn't endorsing everything that was in that particular article. Nevertheless, all of this has become way too tedious for me to even attempt to deal with anymore. I'll just exit the thread. I'll be happier and I'm sure other people will be, too.

 

[slobake]

Actually you verify things like this.
The President of the US has to write his addresses to the nation at an 8th grade level for the average American to understand it. Read one of Obama's speeches or George W Bush and then compare it to a speech by Eisenhower or FDR. The complexity of the sentence structures is much higher in the old speeches.
The same can be said for fiction writing as well. Look at Orwell, Huxley, Falkner, or Joyce then compare it to Harry Potter, 50 Shades of Gray, or Twilight. I would bet that most adults today couldn't read and understand Paradise Lost.
Forget about non-Fiction. For as popular as The Road To Serfdom and The Federalist Papers are, the ideas they contain and the way they are presented are far more sophisticated than anything being written today. Do we have a Hume, Locke, or Kant?
What is being produced is of an objectively inferior quality, and is being consumed by an audience that should be too advanced for such material. That fact that a grown adult wrote Twilight is embarrassing enough, the fact that grown adults are obsessed with it is even worse.
I don't want to start a $#!& storm, but then there are people that have trouble grasping very simple and self evident ideas like evolution. There are grown men running to lead the free world that either honestly can't wrap their head around something that has been proven by the mere existence of dogs, or that think other people are so stupid that they are going to pander to them with such ideas. They don't want to believe that the world is older than 6000 years. OK, but you believe that nuclear weapons work right? The science that lets a nuke go boom proves that the Earth is billions of years old.

Your posts here are a classic example of the type of person I have been talking about. it may not be intentional but you come across as pedantic elitist snob who believes he is much more intelligent than the rest of us. You judge others by your academic standards and don't understand anything else. Your posts do more to stifle conversation than to encourage understanding.