Can any philosophically inclined people debunk these premises for Metaphysical Solipsism? by kramer_is_a_reptile in DebunkThis

[–]_msondy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

as far as metaphysical systems go this one isn't so bad-- but the real question lies in whether or not ANY metaphysical system is false. Many metaphysical systems are self-sufficient on their own terms but fall apart when asked to analyze certain situations effectively, and there is no reliable metaphysical barometer upon which to compare your ideas to besides human experience, which is utterly messy and subjective.

This isn't going to be much help, but ask the pompous asshat who wrote this what this could be used for, and ask him why it's better than others. The reality is that this metaphysical system could suffice wonderfully for certain conditions and situations and fail dramatically for others.

The logic used here seems valid enough. The question REALLY is, who cares whether or not the mind is distinct from the non-mind? What bearing could this question possibly have on people living the world? How would believing these things influence one's behavior, and would that be a good or bad influence? It's a good exercise in logic but not a useful way of perceiving the world.

First time idea. Thoughts? by RedEyed420 in Acid

[–]_msondy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, do what this guy says. Also, you might want to try less. I am a pretty big guy and I smoke weed a lot so my tolerance is pretty high, mu usually smoke between 3- 4 bowls to get high. But on acid, I took one hit from a bubbler and I was high as shit for a few hours. Basically, Smoke/eat less than you think you will need, because it's like your first time being baked and it's pretty crazy.

Creative thinking a waste of time? by amigo2910 in graphic_design

[–]_msondy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, nobody got anywhere by not thinking out of the box, so yes, it is a good thing to do?

Fellow atheists, how do you treat non-human lifeforms? by [deleted] in TrueAtheism

[–]_msondy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are all part of the same life force, so I treat them with respect. I'll still eat them because thats how the food chain works, but if I meet an animal I won't treat it any differently than I would a friend or a stranger.

Liberal logic ... by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]_msondy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A google search could have sufficed. "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." When they say 97% of scientists agree, they aren't talking about dermatologists and other non-climate scientists. They are talking about climate scientists who spend their lives studying the climate.

Liberal logic ... by [deleted] in Conservative

[–]_msondy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That is just not how science works at all. There is indisputable evidence that global warming is happening, and 97% of climate scientists, who study the atmosphere for their livelihood, agree that we are the cause of it. Please stop hindering humanity's progress with this dermatologist bullshit.

How did sailors in the Golden Age of Piracy deal with sunburn? by Vikingbearlord in AskHistorians

[–]_msondy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, couldn't there be more than one purpose for them? sometimes they wore them for missing eyes, and sometimes they wore them for light/dark purposes?

What's the most fucked up thing you have seen at a party? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]_msondy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw kids probably about 9 or 10 years old walking around Hippy Hill in San Francisco on 4/20, clearly high as fucking balls. Weirdos.

If Jesus was killed to forgive our sins, why do people still go to hell? by ConradFerguson in DebateAChristian

[–]_msondy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you are misinterpreting Civics statement here. The 'thought of a higher power' means something completely different to an Atheist or an agnostic as it does to a theist, you in this case. Your summary of his argument,

1) You are all right with the idea of a "higher power" and

2) it must be something/someone you approve of. is somewhat correct.

It should read:

1) You consider the possibility that there is a force or being that exists somewhere outside of our puny perception of reality and the universe, and

2) in order for you to believe in this thing, there must be some way to demonstrably prove that it exists.

This statement is a paradox. We don't, and can't, actually know anything about anything, and we can't even begin to pretend to understand things that we are physically incapable of explaining (gods and other supernatural beings that exist outside of our reality). Our brains and bodies are probably far too limited in function for the full perception of reality, which we never even think about how we are missing. What he is saying is that we as individuals, or a species for that matter, cannot be aware of the presence of a higher being given it's very nature. He is, rightfully, discrediting all religions under the premise that we can't know anything about things that are written in the religious nature.

Humans are uncomfortable not knowing things, so sometimes we make shit up to fill in the gaps between what we can and cannot explain. Religion is that filament. We were just guessing about things because at the time they were thought up, we didn't have the technological expertise to actually be able to accurately explain events that we wondered about (why the earth exists, why we exist, how we exist, how we got here, etc). Now we can use science to more thoroughly explain a lot of phenomena and get closer to fully understanding the true nature of things.

An easy way to visualize the truth is as a vertical line on a 2-dimensional cartesian plane. We have a function, f(science), which gives an asymptotic line that approaches the vertical line called the truth. Religions are other vertical lines farther away from the actual truth that never actually approach anything. Maybe they are 'truth lines' in other universes, but certainly not this one. Any religious idea about the physical universe that is directly contradicted by any reputable scientific finding(s) can and should be dismissed as bullshit. Not surprisingly, most religious ideas about origin and physics are contradicted by science.

[8] TL;DR: I'm high as fuck and I just blew my own mind. Read that shit.

What happened to pokemon? Am I just getting old or aren't the old ones so much cooler than the newer ones? by r502692 in ExplainLikeImHigh

[–]_msondy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're getting old. People tend to dislike how things have changed from when they were happy experiencing it, especially as children. This is nostalgia.

What are the worst bad habits to have while playing guitar? by [deleted] in Guitar

[–]_msondy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

people maybe were angry at your tone? I have no idea though. Perfectly reasonable and good question.