Ben Stein

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:15 PM, SecondaryCell said:

Also, on the subject of the downward spiral of the world, modern culture, humanity, etc. - I think in part this is due to mankind having to come to terms with mass transportation, mass communication, the internet, Youtube and so on.

 

When we began to move out of the age of the small village, where everyone knew each other personally and had to look their neighbor in the eye and shake his hand - that is when the growing pains started. We have not yet gotten used to the distance and disassociation that are side effects of things such as the internet.

 

Of course there are many good things about the shrinking of the world - through the power of the internet I now know that ordinary people in Russia for example, are just like me and not the evil monsters that my government portrayed them as in the 50's and 60's. We had no way to know any different back then.

 

However, it's easy to see the negatives that come with the anonymity of mass communication. This forum is a classic example where many can hide behind their screen names and reduce their intellect to the most primitive and animalistic levels.

 

It's hard to care as much when you can't hear, see or feel what the person on the receiving end of your actions is going through.

lol, fag

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:15 PM, SecondaryCell said:

Also, on the subject of the downward spiral of the world, modern culture, humanity, etc. - I think in part this is due to mankind having to come to terms with mass transportation, mass communication, the internet, Youtube and so on.

 

When we began to move out of the age of the small village, where everyone knew each other personally and had to look their neighbor in the eye and shake his hand - that is when the growing pains started. We have not yet gotten used to the distance and disassociation that are side effects of things such as the internet.

 

Of course there are many good things about the shrinking of the world - through the power of the internet I now know that ordinary people in Russia for example, are just like me and not the evil monsters that my government portrayed them as in the 50's and 60's. We had no way to know any different back then.

 

However, it's easy to see the negatives that come with the anonymity of mass communication. This forum is a classic example where many can hide behind their screen names and reduce their intellect to the most primitive and animalistic levels.

 

It's hard to care as much when you can't hear, see or feel what the person on the receiving end of your actions is going through.

Yes I'd agree with the last part of your post.

On a psychological level, there would be many here who wouldn't dare talk to a person in the way they might here. It's interesting to see how the internet is quickly branching out into many different directions. Many young people who have grown up in the so-called 'digital-era' can hardly hold an intellectual conversation together - mass entertainment is the domineering factor in many people's lives and since this takes up a lot of their time and attention, they enjoy relating + discussing opinions based on the entertainment they have watched rather than what they might have learnt at school or university or current events or politics or philosophy for that matter. From where I come from, people who discuss these sort of things are very few and far between which is quite worrying when considering who actually cares about the direction of society, who wants to learn new things, who wants to teach/educate others about a particular subject. Obviously, where I come from does not account for the whole world population - I can only talk from experience and who I speak to in life.

maybe they don't want to talk about those things because they've learned how irrelevant they are to modern life. In the same way I don't want to talk about techniques for hunting and skinning animals and gathering nuts and berries. Perhaps old farts like Ben Stein should celebrate the adaptability of the human animal, rather than lament the fact that people don't seem to be behaving exactly as he wants them to.

If you define yourself as a an atheist or a believer or an agnostic, you might be limiting yourself in thought. People should just hash this shit out without making blurry distinctions that allow these discussions to devolve into stupid arguments and battle cries.

  On 12/29/2009 at 11:56 PM, lumpenprol said:

maybe they don't want to talk about those things because they've learned how irrelevant they are to modern life. In the same way I don't want to talk about techniques for hunting and skinning animals and gathering nuts and berries. Perhaps old farts like Ben Stein should celebrate the adaptability of the human animal, rather than lament the fact that people don't seem to be behaving exactly as he wants them to.

I don't think it is a case of people learning how irrelevant things like science are for example. I feel it's down to the social conditioning of the individual in terms of who and what has shaped their worldview. It also depends on how you would personally define how socially relevant something is. In society, I'd based relevancy on what can solve problems and allow us to create solutions that benefit everyone - this is something that I feel science can achieve if it is applied correctly for the benefit of all rather than a select few. On the other hand, someone else might say that surviving in this monetary system is much more of a higher importance and relevancy than trying to change things in the world.. almost as if they become a victim of their culture and become psychologically paralysed and feel there is no need to look at any other person's well being but themselves (this is completely understandable as this current social system does not encourage ideas that solve problems). I'm not going to discuss the profit system to its fullest extent as I always seem to be doing in threads like these, but I'd just point out that it seems that if no money can be made from solving a social problem, nothing will be done - which is a great shame. Furthermore, I'd also state that getting feedback from our surroundings, from nature and the environment is key to understanding what can be thought of as socially relevant. Science thrives off feedback from the environment - this is how we measure and experiment with theories when utilising the scientific method. Religion on the other hand does not go about doing things in this sort of technical process. Religions tend to remain established and views of the world are hardly changed, improved or adapted once a new idea emerges in society.

I fully advocate teaching kids how to think on a critical level - it's incredibly important if we want a more advanced and saner future. If this was the case today, I strongly feel that religions would be looked upon as belief systems of no social basis or relevancy - as someone else previously stated, they are not a social necessity. Sure, morals can be extracted from religious texts however, just as people have already pointed out in this thread, morals can be taught without the influence of religious teachings.

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:03 PM, scones to die for said:

This thread is like walking into a fart closet but worse.

yes, indeed. I wish I never read it.

just to clarify, i rely on science for just about everything just as most other rational beings do. but there are people that "deify" science

im not saying the scientific community itself, but perhaps some elements and many, many, many people I've met in my lifetime to that. marijuana is bad for you. fact. proven. cocaine is bad for you. fact. proven. while you are inclined to immediately agree, rational thought and the scientific process itself would indicate that these are incomplete truths, or perhaps even lies.

agnostics belief's in something are irrelevant. an agnostic is one who simply says there is not evidence to affirm or deny the existence of a God. that's pretty much it.

after having this discussion last night, i also read into some articles that debate the actual meaning of atheism, which i find very interesting...so ill have to think on this for a few days to come up with a better definition of atheism.

but i mean, atheist, the word itself means anti-theist or without theism, which would mean NOT believing in a God.

feel free to correct me if im wrong, btw...still reading up on this atheism meaning debate

SCIENCE. good or evil?

i'd say unquestionably good. i don't see how you couldnt

but i should also add that it is flawed and continually needs to be updated, just like any other human invention

where is pbn by the way? im sure he could school all of us on this.

  On 12/30/2009 at 12:35 AM, LARRY said:

If you define yourself as a an atheist or a believer or an agnostic, you might be limiting yourself in thought. People should just hash this shit out without making blurry distinctions that allow these discussions to devolve into stupid arguments and battle cries.

agreed, these labels aren't helpful. What exactly would be suitable 'proof' of the existence of god to an agnostic? it seems like it would be different for each individual.

well that's my whole point. The proof of God is irrelevant to me, I simply want to try to understand the implications of such a word, how it is and can be applied, etc etc etc

edit: whoops grammar error

  On 12/30/2009 at 1:07 AM, messiaen said:

SCIENCE. good or evil?

good, but misused by some

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:10 PM, theSun said:

it means that you believe it doesn't exists. i believe that your mom doesn't not exists is different than i do not believe your mom exists, because you can't infer that i believe anything from that statement.

 

i do not believe your toes are green. -absence of assertion

 

i believe your toes are not green. -assertion

 

do you understand now?

yea, now i get it. with one, you show your belief. and the other, your belief is unclear?

Ben Stein is a republican

Ben Stein is a fucking stupid idiot.

  On 12/30/2009 at 10:14 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Ben Stein is a fucking stupid idiot.

What I don't understand is technically he isn't a fucking stupid idiot - 1600 on his SATs, very high IQ, majored in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society...Graduated Columbia with honors and then went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as class valedictorian in June of 1970...

I really want to know, biologically speaking, what happens with guys like him...its like their brain atrophies...or is it just a lifetime of people kissing his ass that does it? No clue. It's like Ted Kazinski (though in his case we at least have the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Proof positive that you can be really smart but miss the point entirely.

  On 12/30/2009 at 11:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/30/2009 at 10:14 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Ben Stein is a fucking stupid idiot.

What I don't understand is technically he isn't a fucking stupid idiot - 1600 on his SATs, very high IQ, majored in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society...Graduated Columbia with honors and then went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as class valedictorian in June of 1970...

And despite all that, the high-point in his life is being known as the teacher repeating the last name of a fictional character in an overrated John Hughes movie.

  On 12/30/2009 at 11:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/30/2009 at 10:14 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Ben Stein is a fucking stupid idiot.

 

What I don't understand is technically he isn't a fucking stupid idiot - 1600 on his SATs, very high IQ, majored in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society...Graduated Columbia with honors and then went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as class valedictorian in June of 1970...

 

I really want to know, biologically speaking, what happens with guys like him...its like their brain atrophies...or is it just a lifetime of people kissing his ass that does it? No clue. It's like Ted Kazinski (though in his case we at least have the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Proof positive that you can be really smart but miss the point entirely.

Biases and errors in logic and reasoning are extremely common in people with high IQ's just as they are in people with lesser IQ. It's not brute brain power that stops people from making these kinds of errors. I have heard some incredibly stupid shit in my time from people who are considered genius. These flaws in reasoning are amazingly insidious that's what makes them so hard to deal with. Nothing has happened to Ben Stein, he always thought that way.

Yeah, that matches my experience. I once dated a Taiwanese girl who graduated from MIT with a degree in fluid dynamics engineering, which is apparently complex stuff. Her IQ was ridiculously high. But I have to say she was a pretty shallow person. It was almost like she was willing herself to be shallow to avoid having to deal with the darker side of human existence. Kind of interesting.

by dated do you mean payed to have sex with

soorry im drunk i actually think ur cool umpenrpol;

  On 12/29/2009 at 11:51 AM, Obel said:

Um.. I wasn't feeling evangelised by any post. Just wanted to chime in with some thoughts of my own. I'm fully aware that Christians are meant to spread the word of god... I just don't agree.

We are all meant to represent the truth of how things should be to make this world better. I am not one to spread christianity, but i do enjoy the morality of the Biblical framework. ( and if anyone is influenced by that then that is fine by me )

Therefor when people tell me that for example it is better to eat animals then a plant based diet, i chuckle, because it is proven through science and the Bible that one is better then

the other (not to mention better for the environment and the animals that are being eaten). i think the argument can only be validated by saying that certain people prefer

to eat animals instead of things with an identical nutritional make-up that are plant based. this is just one example of many different things that humans validate because of personal preference

and when it effects others, i don't think thats ok! Just so a portion of the population can live in their own little dream world.

Take this for example, this is an interesting way to look at it...for instance, if you are a smoker and you smoke on your own and you are not effecting anyone and influencing anyone then that is one thing....but the moment

your smoke is blowing over and i am made to breath it then that is an issue to me, that is not ok. this same scenario is happening with all kinds of different issues in this world. (and science can prove most of the negative effects, but what good

do the results do if they are bent by personal preference and monies. Morality first, Science second. thats the order. i am not against all science, i am against what science is being used for and how the results are being skewed and used

for special interests and for fuck sake, things we don't even need or solutions for problems that we should solve by getting to the root of the problem which is causing it, not creating a momentary solution through science.

there are so many ways that science could be used constructively, but they step on to many toes of big business so instead science is used mainly as a tool of distraction and used to create things we really did not need in the first place, but now that they have been introduced and naturalized in our lifestyles we think we do )it's ok if this 'smoke' was only effecting the smoker i guess, but people supporting these things they prefer instead of things that are morally correct and good for all of us

is killing all of us with 'second hand smoke' and that i will not stand for!

  On 12/29/2009 at 11:56 PM, lumpenprol said:

maybe they don't want to talk about those things because they've learned how irrelevant they are to modern life. In the same way I don't want to talk about techniques for hunting and skinning animals and gathering nuts and berries. Perhaps old farts like Ben Stein should celebrate the adaptability of the human animal, rather than lament the fact that people don't seem to be behaving exactly as he wants them to.

if you don't think that gathering nuts and berries is relevant then i don't know what to tell you except, that is the problem.

we are being trained to have a false idea of what is relevant, a false set of priorities based on what we have been

given as options to want, and we are all falling for it whether it truly checks out or not.......it's about what we want right?

no, it's about what is right!

  On 12/30/2009 at 11:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/30/2009 at 10:14 AM, my usernames always really suck said:

Ben Stein is a fucking stupid idiot.

What I don't understand is technically he isn't a fucking stupid idiot - 1600 on his SATs, very high IQ, majored in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society...Graduated Columbia with honors and then went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as class valedictorian in June of 1970...I really want to know, biologically speaking, what happens with guys like him...its like their brain atrophies...or is it just a lifetime of people kissing his ass that does it? No clue. It's like Ted Kazinski (though in his case we at least have the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Proof positive that you can be really smart but miss the point entirely.

Ben Stein has started to think with his heart and love with his mind, which has pushed his IQ off the charts!

I'm pretty sure he was speaking out of his ass.