• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

Sideroxylon said:
Can we get to the punch line already? What should we accept if materialism is fake?
Click to expand...

From experience it's trying to work towards "science is fake therefore all those tests where they count people who get better after homeopathy or a placebo and the numbers show homeopathy is useless can be ignored so I can stick with fairy stories."
Of course along the way they'll probably also have to prove that counting is fake.
 
Wudang said:
Of course along the way they'll probably also have to prove that counting is fake.
Click to expand...

Hence my earlier comment. A microprocessor can calculate that 2+2=4, but materialism can't reproduce the sensation of 4 being twice 2, so either materialism is wrong, or counting, or all three.

Dave
 
Sideroxylon said:
Does an understanding of atoms explain sand dunes?
Click to expand...

Understanding forces on a macro level explains sand dunes (not that I could give an adequate speech on the topic).
However, by the account of neuroscience, understaning the emergence of consciousness from brain activity may require understanding brain functioning on an atomic/sub atomic level - so the inquiry of man on bench has some merit. How do atoms produce sentience?
 
I must confess that despite having rather more time on my hands than usual, I did not bother to read all the way through this thread, so apologies if I repeat the thoughts of others. My comment is a simple one, which might go zooming over a head or two, but...

Even if you can prove that materialism is wrong, to say that it is thereby "fake" is intellectual lunacy. All sorts of easy parallels can be found between this and events both current and past, wherein disagreement led to dismissal and worse, but I think it's easy enough to figure out.

I see that there is no attribution for the picture, and the person therein is not identified. I presume that, if a person is not identified as a member of the forum, it would be within forum rules to declare him an idiot. If somewhere in the unread portion of the thread I missed such an identification, I apologize, withdraw my evaluation, and declare him somewhat misguided.
 
bruto said:
I must confess that despite having rather more time on my hands than usual, I did not bother to read all the way through this thread, so apologies if I repeat the thoughts of others. My comment is a simple one, which might go zooming over a head or two, but...

Even if you can prove that materialism is wrong, to say that it is thereby "fake" is intellectual lunacy. All sorts of easy parallels can be found between this and events both current and past, wherein disagreement led to dismissal and worse, but I think it's easy enough to figure out.

I see that there is no attribution for the picture, and the person therein is not identified. I presume that, if a person is not identified as a member of the forum, it would be within forum rules to declare him an idiot. If somewhere in the unread portion of the thread I missed such an identification, I apologize, withdraw my evaluation, and declare him somewhat misguided.
Click to expand...
It's a doctored photo of a true idiot named Steven Crowder. He goes around to college campuses and other public spaces with inflammatory statements with the term "change my mind;" this pic in the OP is an addition made by the poster and not actually what exists in the original photo (except for the change my mind statement).


Crowder is another of a long line of pretty much hard-right blowhards who spout nothing but the standard anti-left and anti-liberal talking points that all conservatives seemingly believe (or to be fair, these pathetic demagogue-wannabes wish that all conservatives believe).


The OP is just as earnest and honest as Crowder; literally doing nothing but trying to score internet points and make themselves look intellectually superior.


ETA: Crowder has a youtube presence and a podcast and other revenue streams who honestly by any measurement should have been kicked off by severely abusing the TOS, but he wouldn't last five minutes as an active poster here.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Can we get to the punch line already? What should we accept if materialism is fake?
Click to expand...

"Therefore you're a hypocrite for telling me my woo isn't true." It's that. It's always that. It was that last time. It will be that next time. The same "I'm so intellectually insecure about being wrong about one thing that I'm going to scorch the entire intellectual earth of the entire concept of knowledge" crap it literally always is. "You can't prove reality is real, therefore homeopathy or God or government conspiracies or whatever beyond the event horizon of the formless Woo I've picked as my gris-gris." Cut and paste, save for later, make a Macro for a keyboard shortcut because it's always that.

"You can't metaphysically pull reality up by its own bootstraps into proving its own existence, therefore you are a hypocrite for calling me out on whatever unsupported nonsense I'm vomiting out, therefore I have a moral victory, which I will now shoehorn into equating with an intellectual victory, therefore you are wrong, therefore I am correct, therefore my Woo is True. You can't prove reality, therefore I'm correct that Bigfoot was hired by the Grey Aliens to plan 9/11 to cover up the evidence that Kennedy was killed to prevent the New World Order from using the Denver Airport to turn frogs gay with chemtrails. QED."

The only question is why (g)we so easily recognize it when it's wall of text Timecube online gibberish but gush over it when it's in Latin in a fine leatherbound book.
 
Last edited:
Has it been established that homeopathy is what devhdb is actually arguing towards? Or is it just a placeholder for whatever his actual unscientific idea turns out to be?

For me, that's the only real interest in these threads: What woo idea is devhdb trying to make room for, here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom