<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 25 Reasons People Believe Weird Things</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/</link>
	<description>A web site by Joshua Sowin that addresses culture, books, technology, ecology, religion, and other topics.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:20:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Free-Thinker</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-162237</link>
		<dc:creator>Free-Thinker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-162237</guid>
		<description>Misclassification leads to much confusion and foolish debate based on false premises and thought-processes.

I will use terms as defined herein to establish conventionally overlooked self-evident distinctions.

Nothing is supernatural. Those who believe in the supernatural, see it as part of the natural order.

So, to distinguish:
&#039;Natural&#039; refers to the &#039;material&#039;, and &#039;supernatural&#039; refers to the &#039;immaterial&#039;. Weird: involving the supernatural; is the latter, immaterial.

Science and the laboratory is the study of the material! Philosophy is the study of the immaterial! (Yes, they do overlap if you want to broaden either definition, such as the philosophy of science, or the science of philosophy, but I will follow these definitions for distinction.)

To demonstrate I will use the brain/mind as a subject.

Scientifically one can prove a brain, not a mind.
Philosophically one can experience a mind, not a brain.
There no truth in a brain, there is truth in a mind.
The brain is natural, the mind is supernatural.
The brain is material, the mind is immaterial.
The study of the brain is &#039;science&#039;.
The study of the mind is &#039;philosophy&#039;
(following above classification of terms.)

Now:

I propose the greatest philosophical supposition to have ever been formed is that of a G-d of truth vs. falsity &amp; right vs. wrong, the belief therein sustaining it, against all odds.

While many religions have come to capitalize on and redefine this concept, there is no doubt that the purely philosophical ideology of G-d is the greatest contribution to the furtherance of humanity EVER!

Immorality (wars etc) will drive itself with or without G-d/religion, but nothing has supported the ideology of morality and harmony more than the supposition of G-d.

And as it&#039;s only improved since the great philosophical era of the romans, there is EVIDENTLY no enlightenment of society that will change this fact, modern or post.

I therefore philosophically conclude:

Those who are so reckless in their blind distaste for the G-d supposition, with claims of enlightenment and free-thinking, using blurred misclassifications as the fodder for their position, crossing into fields of study in which they are no authority, using logic more twisted than that of free-thinking philosophical supposers, publicly spewing skepticism against the greatest contribution to the civilization of humanity, to you I say:

At-least those believers who are no philosophical authority can FEEL the collective G-d within us all, and are thus blinded by their desire to further the ideology of morality and harmony in the way which history has PROVEN most successful, while YOU SKEPTIC accomplish nothing more than an attempt to limit the effectiveness of the greatest supporting force of the ideology of morality and harmony, using (fraudulent) intelligence as your excuse:

You skeptic LITERALLY give yourself over in ignorance to the battle against G-d (and ultimately morality and harmony), because of either being so short-sighted as not to notice the ends for which you fight for, or so evil as not to care!

There is no perspective more senseless than atheism, for even the false religions while maybe more foolish contain some ultimate truth!

ULTIMATE TRUTH!

With all of the above said...

As a Torah Jew who supports the universal unchanging MORAL &amp; JUST law of Noah for all of humanity:

I SEE G-d as much as I SEE.
Can I scientifically prove this? What a foolish question question. Scientifically prove the immaterial?!!! LEARN ENGLISH!!!

The collective intelligence of the universe is the surface of the G-d I believe in.
The immaterial, both of the individual and of collective existence is my starting point, from whence I get lost in the inconceivability of G-d&#039;s wholesomeness.

My intelligence, my awareness, my feelings, my perception of beauty &amp; harmony, universal intelligence (wisdom, unchanging laws of nature, logic, morals) THE WORLD OF THE IMMATERIAL they philosophically PROVE the G-d of right vs. wrong of truth vs. falsity that I perceive, and it is as real if not MORE REAL than anything you materially perceive, for the material is second to the immaterial, for nature is not nature without LIFE!!!

There is right and wrong, truth and falsity, good and evil.

I stand on the side of RIGHT, TRUTH &amp; GOOD!
Where do you stand?

&quot;And ALL the world will fill with the knowledge of G-d like waters covers the sea.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Misclassification leads to much confusion and foolish debate based on false premises and thought-processes.</p>
<p>I will use terms as defined herein to establish conventionally overlooked self-evident distinctions.</p>
<p>Nothing is supernatural. Those who believe in the supernatural, see it as part of the natural order.</p>
<p>So, to distinguish:<br />
&#8216;Natural&#8217; refers to the &#8216;material&#8217;, and &#8216;supernatural&#8217; refers to the &#8216;immaterial&#8217;. Weird: involving the supernatural; is the latter, immaterial.</p>
<p>Science and the laboratory is the study of the material! Philosophy is the study of the immaterial! (Yes, they do overlap if you want to broaden either definition, such as the philosophy of science, or the science of philosophy, but I will follow these definitions for distinction.)</p>
<p>To demonstrate I will use the brain/mind as a subject.</p>
<p>Scientifically one can prove a brain, not a mind.<br />
Philosophically one can experience a mind, not a brain.<br />
There no truth in a brain, there is truth in a mind.<br />
The brain is natural, the mind is supernatural.<br />
The brain is material, the mind is immaterial.<br />
The study of the brain is &#8216;science&#8217;.<br />
The study of the mind is &#8216;philosophy&#8217;<br />
(following above classification of terms.)</p>
<p>Now:</p>
<p>I propose the greatest philosophical supposition to have ever been formed is that of a G-d of truth vs. falsity &amp; right vs. wrong, the belief therein sustaining it, against all odds.</p>
<p>While many religions have come to capitalize on and redefine this concept, there is no doubt that the purely philosophical ideology of G-d is the greatest contribution to the furtherance of humanity EVER!</p>
<p>Immorality (wars etc) will drive itself with or without G-d/religion, but nothing has supported the ideology of morality and harmony more than the supposition of G-d.</p>
<p>And as it&#8217;s only improved since the great philosophical era of the romans, there is EVIDENTLY no enlightenment of society that will change this fact, modern or post.</p>
<p>I therefore philosophically conclude:</p>
<p>Those who are so reckless in their blind distaste for the G-d supposition, with claims of enlightenment and free-thinking, using blurred misclassifications as the fodder for their position, crossing into fields of study in which they are no authority, using logic more twisted than that of free-thinking philosophical supposers, publicly spewing skepticism against the greatest contribution to the civilization of humanity, to you I say:</p>
<p>At-least those believers who are no philosophical authority can FEEL the collective G-d within us all, and are thus blinded by their desire to further the ideology of morality and harmony in the way which history has PROVEN most successful, while YOU SKEPTIC accomplish nothing more than an attempt to limit the effectiveness of the greatest supporting force of the ideology of morality and harmony, using (fraudulent) intelligence as your excuse:</p>
<p>You skeptic LITERALLY give yourself over in ignorance to the battle against G-d (and ultimately morality and harmony), because of either being so short-sighted as not to notice the ends for which you fight for, or so evil as not to care!</p>
<p>There is no perspective more senseless than atheism, for even the false religions while maybe more foolish contain some ultimate truth!</p>
<p>ULTIMATE TRUTH!</p>
<p>With all of the above said&#8230;</p>
<p>As a Torah Jew who supports the universal unchanging MORAL &amp; JUST law of Noah for all of humanity:</p>
<p>I SEE G-d as much as I SEE.<br />
Can I scientifically prove this? What a foolish question question. Scientifically prove the immaterial?!!! LEARN ENGLISH!!!</p>
<p>The collective intelligence of the universe is the surface of the G-d I believe in.<br />
The immaterial, both of the individual and of collective existence is my starting point, from whence I get lost in the inconceivability of G-d&#8217;s wholesomeness.</p>
<p>My intelligence, my awareness, my feelings, my perception of beauty &amp; harmony, universal intelligence (wisdom, unchanging laws of nature, logic, morals) THE WORLD OF THE IMMATERIAL they philosophically PROVE the G-d of right vs. wrong of truth vs. falsity that I perceive, and it is as real if not MORE REAL than anything you materially perceive, for the material is second to the immaterial, for nature is not nature without LIFE!!!</p>
<p>There is right and wrong, truth and falsity, good and evil.</p>
<p>I stand on the side of RIGHT, TRUTH &amp; GOOD!<br />
Where do you stand?</p>
<p>&#8220;And ALL the world will fill with the knowledge of G-d like waters covers the sea.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-141458</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 02:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-141458</guid>
		<description>do you agree with these 25 reasons why people believe weird things?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>do you agree with these 25 reasons why people believe weird things?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Morrison</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-120040</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Morrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-120040</guid>
		<description>No, reductio ad absurdum is not, by itself, a valid argument.  It is commonly stated as: &#039;Taken to it&#039;s logical extreme...&#039; and I would submit there are no logical extreme.  It is a tool, yes, but a less useful tool than many would have you believe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, reductio ad absurdum is not, by itself, a valid argument.  It is commonly stated as: &#8216;Taken to it&#8217;s logical extreme&#8230;&#8217; and I would submit there are no logical extreme.  It is a tool, yes, but a less useful tool than many would have you believe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Egon Jensen</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-97933</link>
		<dc:creator>Egon Jensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-97933</guid>
		<description>The no. 1 reason why people believe weird things is simply: lack of information. 
E.g. in a perfect world of economy people make rational choices. In the real world people make seemingly stupid choices, consumers don&#039;t always buy the best product, don&#039;t go for the cheapest offer, gamble or play lottery - mostly because they lack the information needed to make the optimal choice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The no. 1 reason why people believe weird things is simply: lack of information.<br />
E.g. in a perfect world of economy people make rational choices. In the real world people make seemingly stupid choices, consumers don&#8217;t always buy the best product, don&#8217;t go for the cheapest offer, gamble or play lottery &#8211; mostly because they lack the information needed to make the optimal choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nida</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-90019</link>
		<dc:creator>Nida</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-90019</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d say the examples in # 22 are &#039;non sequiturs&#039;, i. e. the conclusion doesn&#039;t follow from the premises.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d say the examples in # 22 are &#8216;non sequiturs&#8217;, i. e. the conclusion doesn&#8217;t follow from the premises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan Buckley</title>
		<link>http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/comment-page-1/#comment-68886</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan Buckley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 00:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/#comment-68886</guid>
		<description>These are helpful. Reductio ad absurdum, however, is a valid form of argument, as long as there are no fallacies in the logic.  Those examples you give are false because the conclusions do not follow from the premise, not because they are reductio ad absurdum arguments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are helpful. Reductio ad absurdum, however, is a valid form of argument, as long as there are no fallacies in the logic.  Those examples you give are false because the conclusions do not follow from the premise, not because they are reductio ad absurdum arguments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

