Thread: Super Hero Complex

Somehow I knew you'd end up with tunnel vision and only see the last three words of my post. If you're only going to read the insult, why am I bothering to write anything besides insults?

Weather any given person believes any given thing to be nonsense is completely inconsequential. The fact is that his ideas were founded on reason and backed very, very strongly by evidence.

Yes, I CAN rule out that definition of god. It simply doesn't fit. You're right, I must leave a very, very, very small margin for error, but in practical contexts it is safe to assert that there is no god. It is similarly safe to assert that there is no teapot orbiting the sun. Let me ask you this: Do you seriously consider the teapot theory I presented? Or how about the Green Humunculi? Are you asserting their non-existence? If you are, then what makes these beliefs less plausible than a belief in god?

About him being all-loving and powerful, I believe you forgot to give thought to "free will", which was granted to us. You don't promise free will and then intervene.

Blatantly false.

Example:
Claim: There is a 300 lb tiger in my room. It is about 6 feet long and of a yellowish colour.
Conclusion: This tiger does not exist. If it is a yellowish colour it must be visible. If it's 300lbs and 6 feet long, I would definitely see it. I do not see it in my room, therefore no such tiger exists in my room.

At a mere glance I can prove that this tiger does not exist.[/b]

No, YOU are blatantly false. Our five senses pick up on a mere fraction of what actually exists in this universe. There might actually be 300 tigers in your room right now. Just because your 5 senses cannot pick up on something, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not there. For all you know, 300 tigers might be all around you right now in a fourth physical dimension. Horrible apporach trying to justify something 100% based off what our LIMITED senses can pick up on <- something that has been scientifically proven.

Worst response ever. I&#39;m not even going to bother.

On te contrary it was an excellent response
and THAT is the reason you aren&#39;t going to bother
we don not no the limits of the human brain
we do not understand the limits of the inverse
so therefore that margin you are aloowing for God&#39;s existence u must increase slightly
and that is why I am agnostic
I must allow a margin
one quick question
not argumentative just wondering
on the topic of your "SHC" thing, does an agnostic have SHC?
Imran

On te contrary it was an excellent response
and THAT is the reason you aren&#39;t going to bother
we don not no the limits of the human brain
we do not understand the limits of the inverse
so therefore that margin you are aloowing for God&#39;s existence u must increase slightly
and that is why I am agnostic
I must allow a margin
one quick question
not argumentative just wondering
on the topic of your "SHC" thing, does an agnostic have SHC?
Imran[/b]

By Mark 75 definition i would say yes. If you reject all magical thinking then you proberly have not got SHC.
Did you get this idea for Nietzsche because it sound like his first philosophy view of life too becoming a overman.

SHC is also known as "insufficient reality syndrome" for the reason that it apparently stems from people&#39;s disappointment upon discovering that magic doesn&#39;t exist and that they are just another generic human. Their "solution" is to become just another generic psycho and social outcast (but they can&#39;t help it, it&#39;s the demons that posses them that make them unable to be normal idiots).[/b]

If you would have posted in the philosophy forum i think you could have got away with it next time just try you wont get punished just get your post moved.

Worst response ever. I&#39;m not even going to bother.[/b]

I agree.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Worst response ever. I&#39;m not even going to bother.
[/b]

That&#39;s good, because it pretty must justifies that God cannot be proven/disproven with what we are capable of (even with the help of science right now), which is why arguing his existance/non-existance is a lost cause, and does more worse than good. <- Anyone who denies that is an idiot. And why is it the worst response ever? Was my example too "out of this world", sort of like... your teapot example? Or is it a "yeah you are right, the possibilities, though very slim, *are actually there*"

And if you reply "I am not denying it" then why argue with people who oppose your belief?

Let&#39;s see, after a total of 131 posts, and over one month, you have most likely converted a total of: 0 people

Good job.

You like to argue in circles, huh? You should either answer these questions or just go away:

Do you seriously consider the teapot theory I presented? Or how about the Green Humunculi? Are you asserting their non-existence? If you are, then what makes these beliefs less plausible than a belief in god?

I refrain from asserting non-existance to anything
certain things however are more plausible than others
people aseerted non-existance to the theory of evolution
I do believe if u lived in those times, you would ahve branded darwin a person with SHC
you must understand we are alwyas le&#092;rning new things, do not close your mind to possiblities
and Mark i asked u a question earlier and someone else answered it for you
I would prefer your answer
Does being an apathetic agnostic mean you have SHCin your eyes?
Imran

Well you got a point but not with darwin and evolution. Now if someone was arguing for quantum mechanics in the past before experiment showed it was correct then by your definition you could brand them with SHC because the quantum world is the opposite of our classical world so it would be seen as magick with no means of testing to see if it correct.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I refrain from asserting non-existance to anything
certain things however are more plausible than others
people aseerted non-existance to the theory of evolution
I do believe if u lived in those times, you would ahve branded darwin a person with SHC
you must understand we are alwyas le&#092;rning new things, do not close your mind to possiblities
and Mark i asked u a question earlier and someone else answered it for you
I would prefer your answer
Does being an apathetic agnostic mean you have SHCin your eyes?
Imran
[/b]

Hurray, you answered one question&#33; And to respond to yours, no, not necessarily. One who has SHC is one who ignores logic and evidence in order to maintain their fantasies. Anyone who said Darwin had SHC because his ideas were new and different would be the idiot. It&#39;s NOT, I repeat N O T about calling people crazy because they have new and different ideas. It&#39;s about calling people crazy because they have new and different ideas that are founded on patent idiocy, that are entirely false and that those who advocate them are instantly offended by criticism. Speculation on who may have or who did call Darwin crazy is completely irrelevant.

When a person has a stupid idea, it&#39;s a stupid idea. End of story. In fact, if you had any clue whatsoever, you&#39;d know that open mindedness is something I consider to be extremely important. What is equally important is skepticism. That means being skeptical about EVERYTHING, including established beliefs. But why is it you assume close-mindedness in the first place? Is your mind closed to the possibility that I might be right? It&#39;s also pretty stupid to say that I&#39;m just sticking to an established belief. Are we forgetting how much older religions are than modern science? Are you not aware that the theory of evolution is one of the most controversial aspects of science, ever? Not that any of that matters, anyway. Which one has been around for how long and what one is more widely accepted is totally and completely inconsequential. The facts, evidence and logic support evolution. So for now, I&#39;m gonna go ahead and stick with Atheism.

What open mindedness DOES NOT MEAN is that all theories should be held to be equals. Very far from that. Some "theories" and ideas are downright wrong and illogical. These are the beliefs I attack. When some solid supportive evidence is found for these things I attack, by all means come let me know.

Now for the questions you didn&#39;t answer:

Do you seriously consider the teapot theory I presented? Or how about the Green Humunculi? If you are, then what makes these beliefs less plausible than a belief in god?

And one additional question; Is it wrong to assert that an illogical and unfounded claim is false?

Like I said, I considwer everything to be possible
somethings just more possible than others
the teapot theory of yours could b possible, but it is so unlikely, that I offer it no thought
You have to understand the theory of God,
but like mthe other dude said
quantum mechanics is a great example of something that 100 years ago would ahve been considered a ridiculus idea, based on patent idiocity.
All I am saying is that being skeptical and being open-minded is important, and yet you can be niether 100%
never be 100% skeptical of something
or 100% open minded about something
You are a person that sticks hard and fast to rules
you dont understand that we are only begning to unlock the secrets of this universe
Yogis who levitate, do u believe the people hat beleive in these feats to have shc?
or is it simply possible that these yogis have unlocked secrets of trhe mind that scientists havent yet?
can you please answer those questions
by the way, by your defintion I dont ahve SHC anyway, because Im agnostic.
Imran

Do you seriously consider the teapot theory I presented? Or how about the Green Humunculi? If you are, then what makes these beliefs less plausible than a belief in god?

And one additional question; Is it wrong to assert that an illogical and unfounded claim is false?[/b]

1. No, it&#39;s highly unlikely. There are many ways it could gotten there, though highly unlikely -but possible, and so irrelevant to my life that I wouldn&#39;t care if there was one.
2. Same as #1
3. Those beliefs do not give a theory to how existance could possibly exist. Any theory that gives one an idea to how existance could possibly exist, is by no means idiotic because every single theory then would be considered idiotic. Science has the big bang, but what was before that big bang? How did that particle or whatever exploded get there in the first place? Some *idiotic* theory will eventually, if the human race survives long enough, prove existance.
4. No. however you do not simply asset that an illogical and unfounded claim is false. You go ahead and verbally attack those people, starting a ridicolous conflict, instead of simply stating your facts in a mature manner. Oh and by assert, I think you meant "assume", because science has not yet disproven God. Everything in this category of belief is an assumption.

You should include the AI effect in your SHC theory

The AI effect is a term for the tendency for individuals to discount advances in artificial intelligence after the fact. This discounting can come in the form of redefining in their minds what intelligent behaviour means.[/b]

One motivation for the AI effect was suggested by Michael Kearns as "people subconsciously are trying to preserve for themselves some special role in the universe". By discounting artificial intelligence people can continue to feel unique and special. A related effect has been noted in the history of animal cognition and consciousness studies, where every time a capacity formerly thought as uniquely human is discovered in animals (e.g. the ability to make tools, or passing the mirror test), the importance of that capacity is deprecated.[/b]

With AI..

If we had the ability to create artificial intelligence... if we as humans could create consciences...

If we got so advanced that one day, we created a new "smart" species, deposited two of them on a livable planet on the other side of galaxy, and they multiplied, and advanced just like we did , they to have stories of being created, with the human (or humans) in the spaceshift being God, which would slowly evolve over time to just "the belief in God", with their creation ultimately being a sotry of two of their beings being "created" by a supernatural power.

Hey, we might have been seeded. I never really thought about it, but now that I do, it definently IS a real possibility.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Yogis who levitate, do u believe the people hat beleive in these feats to have shc?
or is it simply possible that these yogis have unlocked secrets of trhe mind that scientists havent yet?
can you please answer those questions
[/b]

Sure, but I&#39;m going to go ahead and ignore the rest of the garbage in that post.

If they really are levitating for honest and for true 100% no lies no tricks really this time, then great&#33; Of course it&#39;s possible (I&#39;m really starting to hate that word). What&#39;s more likely, though, is that it&#39;s a hoax, hallucination and/or wildly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by imran_p

1. No, it&#39;s highly unlikely. There are many ways it could gotten there, though highly unlikely -but possible, and so irrelevant to my life that I wouldn&#39;t care if there was one.
2. Same as #1
3. Those beliefs do not give a theory to how existance could possibly exist. Any theory that gives one an idea to how existance could possibly exist, is by no means idiotic because every single theory then would be considered idiotic. Science has the big bang, but what was before that big bang? How did that particle or whatever exploded get there in the first place? Some *idiotic* theory will eventually, if the human race survives long enough, prove existance.
4. No. however you do not simply asset that an illogical and unfounded claim is false. You go ahead and verbally attack those people, starting a ridicolous conflict, instead of simply stating your facts in a mature manner. Oh and by assert, I think you meant "assume", because science has not yet disproven God. Everything in this category of belief is an assumption.
[/b]

3. We could say the the Green Humunculi created everything. Now is it an equally valid explanation? It does explain existence, after all. Doesn&#39;t it?

4. I got tired of stating the facts in a mature manner. That gets us nowhere. The SHC victims are already convinced. I figured since we weren&#39;t getting anywhere, I might as well have some fun in the process. You&#39;re absolutely right that I attacked people. I thought that was pretty obvious. If you&#39;d just like to attack me in retalliation, by all means, be my guest. You can post here or send a PM, I don&#39;t care. But don&#39;t come here posting a bunch of nonsense about how I have to consider these ideas. I don&#39;t. Not now. Not with the lack of support they have.

No, I do not mean assume. I mean assert. I assert that god does not exist. Much in the same way you assert that a meteor is not going to crash into your house. If you did believe it was a significant possibility, then you&#39;d be taking measures to avoid it. Now consider that we know for a fact that meteors exist and can crash into houses. You consider the possibility of the meteor much more strongly than I consider the possibility of god.

Yes, my assertions are based on assumptions, but my assumptions are based on reason. I assume that an army of killer bees isn&#39;t living in my walls plotting my demise, too.

How fully close minded of me to assume that.

Originally Posted by imran_p

You should include the AI effect in your SHC theory
[/b]

Hm, that&#39;s interesting. Exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from someone with SHC. I&#39;ll definitely have to make a note of that. Thanks&#33;

ahem

a question for any and all people here. While we can bash what people believe in all day long, what about what human experience? At what point is the human experience invalid and who decides when the human experience is invalid?

I bring this up because millions of people have seen spirits, have claimed to speak with their beloved deceased in broad daylight, have claimed to see other super natural beings like angels or demons, and others have claimed to witness miracles or demonic activity.

Because there&#39;s no objective way to validate what someone claims to have seen. I can claim that Jesus is roasting marshmallows in my basement as I type this. Can you prove that he isn&#39;t? Of course you can&#39;t. There&#39;s no logical reason to believe that he is, and I haven&#39;t offered any evidence, reasons or any kind of support whatsoever. It&#39;s not about what someone believes to be true, but why they believe that.

but you are the only person I have ever known to be claiming to see Jesus roasting marshmellows in your basement. why would I believe one person?

I think your missing the point of my question. lets try again.

scenario 1:
every single person on earth believes in ghosts but you. not a single person has seen, heard or felt a ghost. science can not prove the existance of ghosts otherwise

scenario 2:
every single person on earth has seen/heard a ghost but you, whether or not they even believe in ghosts. science can not prove the existance of ghosts otherwise

in scenario 2 is the 99.999999999% human experience of ghosts enough evidence to prove the existance of ghosts despite that scientific tools including cameras and photographs can not prove otherwise?

No, it&#39;s not.

Eyewitness accounts are not a substitute for theories, evidence and reason.

Originally Posted by Mark75

No, it&#39;s not.

Eyewitness accounts are not a substitute for theories, evidence and reason.
[/b]

When you have millions of eye witness accounts, reason can be brought into the picture.

It still doesn&#39;t prove anything, but it make the theory more possible.

If a million random people began to claim that Jesus was roasting marshmellows in their basements, then yeah, I&#39;d start to think something is up, and maybe he really is going around roasting marshmellows in people&#39;s basements.

The belief in God wouldn&#39;t count as the millions of eye witnesses, because like you said, the belief is handed down over time - however, for the millions that experience some sort of paranormal activity, it makes you think - maybe there is a spiritual world, which ultimately would tie to many people&#39;s belief in God.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Sure, but I&#39;m going to go ahead and ignore the rest of the garbage in that post.
[/b]

i interpret this to mean
I find that you have a good point
in reponse I will ignore you and jsutify this with an attempt at humour
Imran

Originally Posted by blade5x

When you have millions of eye witness accounts, reason can be brought into the picture.

It still doesn&#39;t prove anything, but it make the theory more possible.

If a million random people began to claim that Jesus was roasting marshmellows in their basements, then yeah, I&#39;d start to think something is up, and maybe he really is going around roasting marshmellows in people&#39;s basements.

The belief in God wouldn&#39;t count as the millions of eye witnesses, because like you said, the belief is handed down over time - however, for the millions that experience some sort of paranormal activity, it makes you think - maybe there is a spiritual world, which ultimately would tie to many people&#39;s belief in God.
[/b]

While I&#39;d agree that such an overwhelming statistic (99.9999%) would make it seem more plausible, the fact remains that without reasons, evidence and all that it&#39;s still nothing more than hearsay.

Originally Posted by blade5x

i interpret this to mean
I find that you have a good point
in reponse I will ignore you and jsutify this with an attempt at humour
Imran
[/b]

Okay, imran.

Once again he displays his infamous evasive mannerisms
=D
Imran

Okay, imran.