Post by: penguinofhonor on July 18, 2012, 11:27:16 pm
Now, for those of you who don't know, atheism threads in the past have become huge megathreads of circular arguments and hatred. Honestly, I won't be surprised if this gets locked eventually. But let's try to have as much good discussion as we can, thanks.
Rules:
- Don't be a dick. Whether religious condemnation or atheistic condescension, we're all prone to it. Try not to do it please. No matter what your religious views, you're not enlightened. You're not smarter than everyone else.
- No flaming. Things here can get personal. If someone's not outright being a troll, step back and maybe think about it a little bit. If someone is trolling, either ignore them or PM me about it. Calling them out in the thread just makes more drama.
- If you don't understand something, feel free to ask people. Not everyone's going to understand religious views. But ask politely. Things like "How could you possibly believe that?" are breaking rule #1.
- Try to use citations wherever they're relevant. They're not required for things like personal philosophy, but bringing up links and relevant material is rarely a bad thing.
- Try not to rehash the same discussion over and over again. These arguments can get really circular, and a bit of that is inevitable but just try to avoid it if possible.
- Keep past threads out of this if possible. I know we're a small community, and I know you might recognize someone from a past thread, but it really shuts down discussion if someone posts once and they get five people going "Oh, you're that guy. I remember you. You said this dumb thing."
- No extensive goofing off. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113483.msg3800766#msg3800766) I want to keep this thread a little serious so it can stay under control more easily. A good rule of thumb is that if you're making a post solely to respond to a joke, it belongs elsewhere.
Post by: Karlito on July 18, 2012, 11:31:51 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on July 18, 2012, 11:33:53 pm
Post by: SoHowAreYou on July 18, 2012, 11:35:26 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 18, 2012, 11:35:43 pm
That said, posting to watch.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 18, 2012, 11:37:06 pm
Nothing good will come of this.
I'm a little pessimistic too, but I'm also confident in Bay 12's ability to defy my pessimism.
Post by: ggamer on July 18, 2012, 11:37:35 pm
The clusterfuck will happen.
lurks
Post by: Hanslanda on July 18, 2012, 11:38:56 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 11:40:10 pm
From the happy thread:
Quote
That "the obstacles have a purpose" line always depresses the fuck out of me, at least :-\ There's just too much shit that goes down that a conceivable purpose cannot exist for, unless that purpose is sadism or malevolence.Well the "purpose" doesn't have to be benevolent. In DF, you may send beasties after your dwarves for giggles. That's a purpose. That's something the dwarves really do not like. Yet it happens.
And another thing: If you want to have a good serious look at all the possibilities, you can't limit yourself to benevolent and just deities. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they're like us playing Dwarf Fortress: the weak an infirm get the magma, and the powerful get the love and affection.
Also, you can't be human-centric. What's to say gophers aren't God's chosen species? Or maybe there isn't a chosen species, and all life is of equal weight? We put too much stock in ourselves; we might not be important enough to "deserve" benevolence.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 18, 2012, 11:41:07 pm
Rule suggestion: no posts smugly predicting how terrible the thread is going to turn out. They spam up the thread no end. It's acceptable to point it out after it's happened but I don't see any justification for doing it pre-emptively.
Also I'd suggest giving us a starting topic or something.
Post by: Phantom of The Library on July 18, 2012, 11:41:47 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 18, 2012, 11:43:16 pm
I don't really know where to put this, so I'll put it here.
I've become an atheist. God may exist, but I don't want to worship him. I don't want to believe that assholes who are part of your religion will get to Heaven, while genuinely nice people will burn in eternal damnation just because they don't participate in your own religion. If God was really like that, he would be a complete douchebag and I would rather be with Satan. Furthermore, I have come to somewhat accept the fact of the end of existence at the point of death. It's hard to comprehend due to knowing nothing but existence, but I'm finally OK with there being no afterlife, and knowing that death means the end of everything.
I take comfort in logic, and evidence. When I hear my mother and relatives talk about religion, I realize they say contradictory things. When they talked about the death of a recent relative, they were solaced in the fact that his suffering was over, saying it was God's plan for him. Oh really? It was merciful, loving god's plan for him to suffer through 45 years of life, constantly battling addiction, and finally succumbing to alcoholism? That "serves" god's plan?
No. I'm not going to believe in that shit. I'll do what's right. Treat everyone how I want to be treated. And I'll live on. Through the memories of the people I meet, and the energy I transfer to the organisms that consume my flesh after I die, that's how I live on. Not some bullshit afterlife.
I just needed to say something. I've become sickened with religion. I have no problem with people who are nice about it, just the assholes who use religion as a tool of discrimination and hatred. And I can't believe in god anymore.
I'm just glad you are okay with nice religious people, keeping your malice towards the exploitative folk. Just try to be more specific there, you got beef with Christians. Taoists think all that is just as crazy as you do.
Except for the stuff about death (I'm still planning on attaining immortality for all humans, damn the consequences I WANT TO LIVE and I'm too moral to tell everyone else to suck it), that's basically how I feel.
Especially that first part. If God showed up tomorrow, while (most) everyone else is bent at the knee, I'd be filling a list of grievances against him with the nearest lawyer. Starting with all those "Act of God" things that have been pinned on him over the years.
Eh, I don't believe in anything though I lean more on the religious side (the whole consciousness thing continues to trip me up). Were I to wager a guess, it wouldn't be any of those fire and brimstone religions like Christianity. I'd probably go with something like Deism.
I'd probably just punch him in the face for being such a sucky god. Hurricanes, floods, hunger, HIV/AIDS, mosquitoes, extreme poverty, slavery and human trafficking, the Westboro Baptist Church...
The list goes on. What the hell, christian god?
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on July 18, 2012, 11:45:39 pm
Quote
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward in you"
Post by: Hanslanda on July 18, 2012, 11:47:50 pm
@Kilroy: That is a god I could get behind, but as usual, we have to go with faith, and have no tangible evidence that shitty people get shitty ends. We just have to be good and hope its all good. Which is what we should do anyway.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 18, 2012, 11:49:20 pm
I'm finding myself agreeing with Descan on the whole 'list of grievances' thing, not that it would do any good against a god. If such a thing exists. Sheesh, I'm not wanting to offend anyone, and its making it hard to say anything I believe. :/ This thread is scary.Rawr we're totally going to judge you! :P
Say what you believe! And if you wanna throw rocks at God, go for it. It's a potentially reasonable reaction.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 12:01:32 am
So.
Shrug. :-\
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 12:02:24 am
I'm atheist. I don't see why a God would exist. If it does and I am proven wrong, then blow me down.
Tim Minchin's "Storm" is a good summation of my current views on religion and pseudoscience. "If it turns out I am wrong, I'll spin on a fucking dime, I'll shout it to the world, and I'll take a compass and carve the words 'Fancy that!' on the side of my cock." (paraphrased, but more or less correct.)
I prefer to be humanist. We humans can have so much more efficacy in helping others than by merely praying. Praying for the starving in Africa/India/Wherever will probably not have an effect; but donating / actually going there to help will.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 12:02:42 am
Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 12:13:14 am
Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 12:19:53 am
And if you wanna throw rocks at God, go for it. It's a potentially reasonable reaction.Rocks!? Rocks are for cowards! Real men throw punches!
Anyway, I think that there's enough of the brain that we don't understand yet that the brain housing the entirety of the personality, likes, dislikes, quirks, habits and other whatnot that there's no need to invoke a soul.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 12:21:54 am
Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing,Few things here:
1) Science has poked holes in specific religions, but not "the whole god thing." Religion isn't just Christianity.
2) This point is rather pedantic rather than supporting any specific argument, but... Science actually has zero of of what you would probably call proof. There is no absolute certainty in science, just "within reasonable doubt." Everything you learn via experimentation could be a fluke. The chances of that can be utterly miniscule (my computer merely running supports many scientific theories to a ridiculous degree), but the possibility always exists. (however, don't trust anyone who uses this as a reason to decry science, because denying inductive reasoning is plain nutty. Like I said, this is a pedantic point)
3) Furthermore, science relies on the philosophy of empiricism. That itself has a really big fucking gaping hole: solipsism. Ever seen the Matrix? What you see, taste, touch, smell, and feel is how you experience the world, but there's nothing saying those experiences aren't a lie. Descartes (the "I think therefore I am" guy) talked a lot about it and could only escape it to his satisfaction through religion.
So all that stuff can be negated by simply taking a different set of assumptions than the assumptions we make concerning empiricism and science. No matter what, you're putting your faith in some unprovable, unsupported assumption. Empiricism is the big one. Inductive reasoning is much, much more reasonable but still inherently never an absolute certainty.
Post by: Kilroy the Grand on July 19, 2012, 12:22:33 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There is nothing special that I've found that differentiates humans and animals. I've killed lots of animals, I've seen a lot of animals thrash around as they die, some of them even looked me in the eyes while they bled to death. You're just seeing what you want to see. You see a squirrel that likes acorns more than walnuts, I see a squirrel. We all live and then we die, until you can give me the weight of a soul, or some metric to measure it by I'm going to assume it doesn't exist.Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.
Post by: lemon10 on July 19, 2012, 12:23:26 am
Do you think every living thing has a soul? Do plants? Does it require a brain?Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 12:30:47 am
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different?Variance in preference, resultant from variance in phenotype, resultant from variance in genotype, resultant from naturally selected random mutation. And they aren't that different. Most members of a species act in similar manners, especially the non-human species.
Quote
I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.Allow me to tell you the tale of Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage). Phineas was a railroad foreman, a favored and efficient one. One day, dear Phineas ended up having his skull impaled by a tamping iron, destroying his left frontal lobe.
Despite this, Phineas survived his injury, but there were consequences. He became prone to unjustified anger and impatience, and was no longer efficient at his job or favored by his fellows. Many of them described him as having become a different person.
Why? Because the mind is a projection created by the brain, and if the brain is damaged, the mind is damaged to fit. There's nothing supernatural about any of it.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 19, 2012, 12:32:56 am
1. A lot of the Bible is symbolism.
2. Hell (for lack of a word with fewer connotations) is a choice to be separated from God. There may be "wailing and gnashing of teeth" but that does not imply torture. Hell is simply the state of complete lack of love (in the agape sense (i.e. I respect that you are a person with your own free will, etc.))
3. Purgatory, penance, and a life of righteousness do not so much mean earning your way into heaven as affirming it as a choice.
4. Life and dignity of the human person is foremost in how people should treat others. And that leads to this: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20) That particular book of the Bible has some nice gems that pretty much amount to "Believing in God does not excuse you from anything."
5. Believing in God does not excuse you from anything. Except perhaps the draft, sometimes.
6 (less spiritual). Jesus was totally a pacifist communist.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 12:33:51 am
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 12:35:31 am
About the plants thing. Life is the soul. Lives do not have souls. Plant cells undergo the processes we typically associate with being 'alive' such as dying, so I would consider them to have souls. And perhaps I mispoke earlier. It isn't necessarily that souls are the reason everyone's unique. That was poor example on my part, because I wasn't sure how to explain what I meant by 'have souls'.
Sigh. I can't adequately explain my thoughts on this, I'm not good enough at explaining myself. :/ I'm not prepared for this discussion guys. I'm going to sit it out after this to avoid getting too stressed out and possibly morphing into a troll.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 12:36:15 am
3) Furthermore, science relies on the philosophy of empiricism. That itself has a really big fucking gaping hole: solipsism. Ever seen the Matrix? What you see, taste, touch, smell, and feel is how you experience the world, but there's nothing saying those experiences aren't a lie. Descartes (the "I think therefore I am" guy) talked a lot about it and could only escape it to his satisfaction through religion.There's a problem with this approach, though. Even if we are in some fictional reality, all evidence points to this reality being the only one. Thus far, there has been nothing that is testable/repeatable/verifiable that suggests that there is some sort of outside controlling force working on this reality. Science can only follow the evidence as far as it goes, and there is no evidence that goes outside the universe that we happen to be in. As far as anything outside the universe is concerned, either it cannot affect us in any meaningful way that we can detect, or it doesn't exist. Sure, we may be a computer simulation, but does that really affect you if we are?
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 12:39:56 am
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 12:40:41 am
I'm not prepared for this discussion guys. I'm going to sit it out after this to avoid getting too stressed out and possibly morphing into a troll.It's cool. Think and come back if you so desire :) Thinking is good.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 12:41:03 am
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 19, 2012, 12:41:41 am
You also can't undervalue or undermine the fact that science works. Even if the reality we perceive is fundamentally wrong, our understanding of this wrong reality has proven to provide a lot of nifty applications and benefits.Even though it's (possibly) wrong, at least it's consistent?
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 12:43:02 am
Though I suppose my point was, don't hate on unfounded assumptions. "Belief" isn't a horrible thing that should be avoided, unless you're a hardcore solipsist that denies all this stuff. Belief is fine, even in stuff like religion, so long as you don't force it down people's throats.
Post by: Phantom of The Library on July 19, 2012, 12:44:17 am
What is the definition of a soul we're using here?
A metaphysical entity that controls the body from outside the physical plane?
The very essence of a person's being?
Their emotions and personality given form?
A power source for the mind to run on?
An ethereal copy of oneself that ascends to a higher plane upon death?
Life force?
Do you think every living thing has a soul? Do plants? Does it require a brain?Last I heard, tentative research shows that plants do have brains of a form in their root system.
QuoteI'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.Allow me to tell you the tale of Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage). Phineas was a railroad foreman, a favored and efficient one. One day, dear Phineas ended up having his skull impaled by a tamping iron, destroying his left frontal lobe.
Despite this, Phineas survived his injury, but there were consequences. He became prone to unjustified anger and impatience, and was no longer efficient at his job or favored by his fellows. Many of them described him as having become a different person.
Why? Because the mind is a projection created by the brain, and if the brain is damaged, the mind is damaged to fit. There's nothing supernatural about any of it.
What if the brain were a conduit for the soul/mind and specific parts are specialized receivers and if damaged prevent proper reception? That would explain the personality change just as well.
Post by: Bauglir on July 19, 2012, 12:46:07 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 12:46:34 am
What if the brain were a conduit for the soul/mind and specific parts are specialized receivers and if damaged prevent proper reception? That would explain the personality change just as well.What if space is actually a giant mandelbrot curtain put up by our genetically modified alien ancestors so we aren't driven mad by the true visage of the universe and can die out in relative peace?
There's no reason to "what if" this stuff unless you have some reason to assume it.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 12:46:49 am
Once you understanding the short comings of a religion it can be applied to other religions too. As a broad example; any religion with a creation myth takes a particular dent right there. And religion which describe the working the earth contrary to actual understanding.Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing,Few things here:
1) Science has poked holes in specific religions, but not "the whole god thing." Religion isn't just Christianity.
Quote
2) This point is rather pedantic rather than supporting any specific argument, but... Science actually has zero of of what you would probably call proof. There is no absolute certainty in science, just "within reasonable doubt." Everything you learn via experimentation could be a fluke. The chances of that can be utterly miniscule (my computer merely running supports many scientific theories to a ridiculous degree), but the possibility always exists. (however, don't trust anyone who uses this as a reason to decry science, because denying inductive reasoning is plain nutty. Like I said, this is a pedantic point)Science is inherently error correcting, and doesnt need to be absolutely correct or have absolute knowledge to make progress.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 12:47:09 am
Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.
Quirks in chemical alignment. When you try to put tens of trillions of bits of information together, it can sometimes get a bit weird. Things change.
Not only that, but everything alive is genetically coded to have a slight variation on the parent, in addition to mutation. What are the three things that promote evolution?
- Mutation
- Hereditability
- Variation
Mutation as you no doubt know is a slight change in genetic code from the parent, so that the offspring is more than just a mix of the two. Some mutations are beneficial, like being tall, or stronger, or more disease resistant. Some are not, like Huntingdon's disease. Mutation keeps our species and all other species on the boil.
Hereditability allows us to take genetic material from our parents. It, like mutation, can be positive and negative. My red hair is a hereditary trait; both of my parents carry the mutant MCR1 gene and so I was born a red head. Both of my parents have the genetics for it; it was expressed in me. I acquired my mother's side strong bones, balancing my father's side's weak bones. I acquired my father's side's strong joints, balancing my mother's side's weak joints. I acquired a middling height, (179cm / 5'11"), almost exactly halfway between each parent (152 cm / 4'11.75" and 197 cm / 6'6").
Variation allows us to further be different from our parents. It is expected that we lean one way or another with our hereditability, leaning toward our mother or our father genetically, or a further off ancestor. Me with my red hair, northern dutch looks (small eyes, round cheeks, strong and lean build) look like neither parent, but I take after my father's side (my father's father is north dutch by descent. dad's half north dutch, half south dutch (olive skin, dark hair). My brother takes after the south dutch half, so he looks like dad. My sister is a half-half variation of the south-dutch looking females of my father's family and the celtic looks of my mother's.
Those three factors allow us to have differences.
As for your suggestion that we seem to have souls, that is true, in that a soul is a specialised set of cell networks firing electricity at each other in an unimaginably complex way. It irritates me to have something labelled inaccurately when a more accurate (if more boring and less mystical) label can be applied.
Fakedit: Ninja'd x 16.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 12:48:39 am
Obviously plants have feelings of their own so we must live off of milk and honey. Unless you can name something else that solely exists to be food.In the premise that we're incapable of determining it to be wrong, then it doesn't matter. As long as its internally consistent, and our models prove to have explanatory power and provide application we're good.You also can't undervalue or undermine the fact that science works. Even if the reality we perceive is fundamentally wrong, our understanding of this wrong reality has proven to provide a lot of nifty applications and benefits.Even though it's (possibly) wrong, at least it's consistent?
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 12:49:43 am
I'm not prepared for this discussion guys. I'm going to sit it out after this to avoid getting too stressed out and possibly morphing into a troll.It's cool. Think and come back if you so desire :) Thinking is good.
I'll be lurking, but I'm don't have my beliefs in order. Its a jumbled mess of maybes and 'I kinda think's. :)
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 12:54:03 am
Quote
There's no reason to "what if" this stuff unless you have some reason to assume it.There's plenty of reason to "what if". Here and elsewhere. That there are other possibilities is important... if we didn't look for them, we might not find actually existent evidence. One does not need a reason to ask questions and make hypotheses.
Re: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 12:58:40 am
Re: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?You see and feel because seeing and feeling are advantageous to the continued survival of our particular chain of life, and so systems for sight and tactile sense were naturally selected from random mutation over the course of millions of years.
A decent analogy is that consciousness is the software to your brain's hardware. The programs on your computer are not exactly physically "there" in the direct sense, but are a product of the machine's operation.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 12:59:02 am
Inasmuch as its programming allows it to feel.
We only feel as much as our self-programming allows us to feel. If we elected to keep our eyes shut all the time, we would lose sight.
It is similar with computers. They cannot feel due to lack of programmed behaviour; we as animals feel because we program ourselves to use this behaviour as it helps us with survival.
What would we happen if we were able to program a sufficiently complex AI and equipped it with all the sensory input we have, and an ability to express itself?
Does it then have a soul, as it is aware and able to interact?
Is a soul as simple as the ability to be self-aware?
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 01:01:05 am
You can can create an infinite number of scenarios, but that not exactly productive. Empiricism does make some vast assumptions, but thats not a reason to simple disengage from it. Its productive and useful. Its assumption also seem to be holding true. There no reason to interject multitude of unlikely explanation when you derive to an explanation thats conforms to a useful model.QuoteThere's no reason to "what if" this stuff unless you have some reason to assume it.There's plenty of reason to "what if". Here and elsewhere. That there are other possibilities is important... if we didn't look for them, we might not find actually existent evidence. One does not need a reason to ask questions and make hypotheses.
Quote
Re: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?Does it matter? There no separation between the physical brain and the conscience. There are direct correction between brain activity and our conscience. So even if their is a soul, its not a separate entity of us, but probably a descriptor of the process of a conscience.
And if it a purely physical, then other physical objects could have them as well.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 01:04:07 am
Quote
Re: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?Does it matter? There no separation between the physical brain and the conscience. There are direct correction between brain activity and our conscience. So even if their is a soul, its not a separate entity of us, but probably a descriptor of the process of a conscience.
And if it a purely physical, then other physical objects could have them as well.
[/quote]
The physical brain is the physical manifestation of our thoughts and "soul". The analogy that the mind is to the brain as the software is to the hardware is quite apt.
Without the hardware, the software cannot exist. The hardware can exist without the software but not do much. Together they make a whole.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 01:09:40 am
The software hardware analogy is quite poor. Software works indifferent to the hardware used. If I install it on plethora of not identical computers, the software will work the same.QuoteRe: souls. This is what trips me up most of all. What is consciousness? Why do I "see" and "feel"? Is it a soul, or does everything of sufficient sophistication "see" and "feel"? If the latter, what's the turning point? Could a computer? Could a complex system like an ecosystem or economy?Quote from: MrWigglesDoes it matter? There no separation between the physical brain and the conscience. There are direct correction between brain activity and our conscience. So even if their is a soul, its not a separate entity of us, but probably a descriptor of the process of a conscience.
And if it a purely physical, then other physical objects could have them as well.
The physical brain is the physical manifestation of our thoughts and "soul". The analogy that the mind is to the brain as the software is to the hardware is quite apt.
Without the hardware, the software cannot exist. The hardware can exist without the software but not do much. Together they make a whole.
However, changes to the brain affect our conscience. For this analogy. If I installed MS Office Suit on my computer, then changed the motherboard, MS Office Suit, wouldn't then be MS Office Suit, but say, Quiken.
Comma patience have woken up with entirely different personalities. Sexual preference, likes dislikes, affinity for skills, all change.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 01:15:47 am
You can can create an infinite number of scenarios, but that not exactly product. Empiricism does make some vast assumptions, but thats not a reason to simple disengage from it. Its productive and useful. Its assumption also seem to be holding true. There no reason to interject multitude of unlikely explanation when you derive to an explanation thats conforms to a useful model.No reason except idle curiosity and desire to ask questions. That's good enough for most things, no?
I know what you're arguing. When a question's answer doesn't result in any change, there's no real point in asking it. "May as well not be true" is functionally the same as "is not true" (and vice versa). But they're still not equivalent. And anyway, it's good mental exercise.
And who knows? If the universe is a simulation, maybe we'll find the debug menu. Then this philosophizing about the unknowable won't be so "pointless."
Quote
Software works indifferent to the hardware used.Incorrect. It only seems that way since we came up with a standardization. Software is represented in binary, and on the assembly level, different processors interpret that data in different ways. If you make a program for one processor it won't work on a different type.
If you throw a program assembled for processor A on processor B, it'll go wacky and crazy and probably not work at all. Brains are much more dynamic than that, but it's still very reasonable that they interpret data in different ways based on how they're assembled.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 01:16:53 am
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 01:18:50 am
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 01:21:00 am
You're muddying the analogy.Quote from: MrWiggles link=topic=113483.msg3460510#msg3460510Software works indifferent to the hardware used.Incorrect. It only seems that way since we came up with a standardization. Software is represented in binary, and on the assembly level, different processors interpret that data in different ways. If you make a program for one processor it won't work on a different type.
If you throw a program assembled for processor A on processor B, it'll go wacky and crazy and probably not work at all. Brains are much more dynamic than that, but it's still very reasonable that they interpret data in different ways based on how they're assembled.
The software in this case is the soul and trying to show that it separate from the machine, but interconnected/intereliant. Going into further detail of computer programming or the history of programming isn't useful for this analogy.
If you're going to go that far into detail, then the analogy is wrong, as brains are biological and computers aren't.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 01:21:46 am
We use this one until a better analogy can be found, then how's that?
Post by: Bauglir on July 19, 2012, 01:22:26 am
The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.
EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 01:26:03 am
Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.
EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 01:27:42 am
Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.
EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.
Makes sense. Our neurons fire by communicating an electrical signal; on or off; binary. But it's more complicated than that.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 01:31:12 am
The point of contention is whether the brain is a "conduit" or self contained, and for that I'll pull the "it doesn't matter either way" card. Damage causing different behavior can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, all logically consistent with both theories.
Memory loss is probably the biggest point against it being a conduit. Why would your soul forget things? Though then again most theologies I know of promise perfect memory after death, so maybe it's stored in some extradimensional thingy. :P
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 01:34:10 am
It's really not too much more complex than that, if what I've read (and understood) is correct. Really, the only addition you can make to that statement is that the chemistry in the part of the brain receiving a signal changes how that signal is perceived (which is why hallucinogens work.)Well, why not? Our brains run on electrical pulses...what if they speak something like binary?The real problem with the computer analogy is that the software and hardware of the human brain is the same thing. It's more like an embedded system than anything else.Well, to be fair, the same applies to a computer. It's a bunch of transistors, and the program only exists insofar as the interactions between those bits carry on.
EDIT: I don't mean bit in the technical sense.
Makes sense. Our neurons fire by communicating an electrical signal; on or off; binary. But it's more complicated than that.
Isn't the brain considered a computer by most biologists, anyway? It's just got billions of processors instead of our measly 2-16.Sort of but not really. Each part of our brain works as processor, HDD and RAM all at once.
Post by: Hiiri on July 19, 2012, 01:42:29 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz021e8UMZc
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 01:50:17 am
Does anyone look up at the night sky, realizing that each of those little specks of life is a place, probably thousands of places within that one little speck, and get emotional? I mean, really seeing the universe for as vast as it is, and realizing that you get to be part of that...does that resonate with all you guys as much as it does with me?
What if there are others out there, looking up at our little speck, and wondering if there's anyone out there, the same way we do?
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 01:52:34 am
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 01:53:38 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 19, 2012, 01:57:32 am
I get scared when I realize that everything is so vastly separate, so far away, that it wouldn't even be physically possible for me to see any of the stuff near us in person. And then I realize that something like the space between galaxies is so many times vaster, and the space between galaxy clusters moreso... fuck.
Post by: Frumple on July 19, 2012, 02:06:19 am
Existential wise, the other solar systems don't really ding my radar. They're neat in an abstract way, and definitely aesthetically pleasing, both physically and conceptually, but until they or something interacting meaningfully with them are within my light cone I'm just not terrible concerned. I want for humans to be there when the last one dies, but that's about it.
Eh, who can actually comprehend the size of the universe?Wanna' have some real fun? Try to imagine the possibility of distance between pre-big bang singularities. I've still not quite wrapped my head around whether that's actually precluded by our mostly-current conceptualization of astrophysics (I.e. The "scientific creation myth" :P). And if it's not, well. Well.
I get scared when I realize that everything is so vastly separate, so far away, that it wouldn't even be physically possible for me to see any of the stuff near us in person. And then I realize that something like the space between galaxies is so many times vaster, and the space between galaxy clusters moreso... fuck.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 02:07:14 am
Post by: Frumple on July 19, 2012, 02:10:14 am
Sure, the question's totally irrelevant if the distance is sufficient to preclude the possibility of interaction (including the sort of interaction we call observation), but...
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 02:14:15 am
I know that the models for the universe put it as saddle shaped or toroidal, but maybe the shape is just uneven or we aren't thinking big enough yet?
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 02:19:49 am
I'd much rather ponder the human race than what may or may not be out there.
Point taken. Hey, what if the universe is spherical, and we're just riding the inside of the sphere until we hit together and cause a big crunch, leading back to another big bang?
I know that the models for the universe put it as saddle shaped or toroidal, but maybe the shape is just uneven or we aren't thinking big enough yet?
The shape is uneven, from what I think at least. It cannot be a regular shape; that would violate our theory that dark matter fuels expansion.
In some areas of the universe, space is beginning to collapse and Crunch, because of a lack of dark matter. In other areas it is expanding, due to a higher concentration of dark matter.
What is observable to us forms a roughly spherical shape; but that's only because a sphere represents all directions.
The universe in my mind, forms a spherical shape at a macro level, but different areas are in states of wax and wane.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 02:21:46 am
Post by: Reudh on July 19, 2012, 02:37:10 am
I think it would be more or less look like very bright lights twinkling across the sky and very tiny, barely detectable fisheye effects happening in some areas and the opposite in some others and yet others staying stable.
Post by: Megaman on July 19, 2012, 02:44:56 am
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 02:55:05 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 03:03:08 am
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 03:08:34 am
Post by: Vattic on July 19, 2012, 03:37:35 am
Me personally: I look up at the sky and try and comprehend the massive expanse that is the universe and then my brain hurts and I look away.We've moved past this point a bit but personally I love how small it makes me feel. Anything in nature that makes me feel this way is wonderful.
Post by: Flare on July 19, 2012, 04:00:47 am
Science has proof, and also pokes a bunch of holes in the whole god thing, but humans and animals seem to have souls.Elaborate.
Well, you've seen roadkill. How is it that each individual piece of roadkill was once a living breathing animal that had its own quirks and habits and likes and dislikes? Same question for a graveyard of dead humans. How can they all be so different? I'm sure we could go all science with it and say something along the lines of, 'Its all brain chemistry and cell position in the CNS', but I don't think that fully explains it.
Our current understanding might not fully explain it, but this is no reason to resort to the conclusion that we have souls. Your argument only goes so far as to say that maybe our current understanding of the brain does not explain all behaviour in creatures that have them.
For you to reach the conclusion that you hold, there would have to be more premises before the conclusion stating that souls give variation, and souls provide consciousness. Neither of which is an unquestionable assumption. It is entirely correct to say that our systematic inquiry in this field is limited, but so is our knowledge of what exactly a soul is, or that which we don't really know anything about. What is a soul? Does it have boundaries? How does it react with the body? We have great difficulty coming to a consensus about the qualitative description of souls, and not only that the quantitative ones too. How do we know we only have one soul, or that we don't switch out souls all the time, or maybe we're sharing several souls with multiple people at the same time?
Post by: Yoink on July 19, 2012, 04:15:28 am
All religious arguments are silly.
I believe in both Religion and Christianity: God created monkeys, and it all went downhill from there. 8)
Post by: Leafsnail on July 19, 2012, 05:11:25 am
There's plenty of reason to "what if". Here and elsewhere. That there are other possibilities is important... if we didn't look for them, we might not find actually existent evidence. One does not need a reason to ask questions and make hypotheses.If a theory has no testable predictions then it's virtually impossible to have any evidence for or against it. That's why generally when making hypotheses you think of a way it would affect the world we live in and work out a way we could test it (even if it's not currently technologically possible).
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 05:24:52 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 19, 2012, 06:09:20 am
a simple program like df is capable of generating wildly varied complex outputs using only a meager set of pseudo-random numeric strings. it is no wonder a super complex organic super computer created by randomness itself can define a distinct individual. it is a wonder that they are so consistent even
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 06:11:29 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 19, 2012, 06:29:16 am
Evolution is not entirely random. 8/ Majority of the mechanics for Natural Selection aren't random.Such as behavioural changes that bring animals to new environments...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_macaque
To take advantage of new food sources and habitats
_______________________________________________________________________
You're not enlightened.(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSx91HiNEiBYH_MXnh_pSxdsvkx408-HA8P-NARtSK38KHblKKn)
Buddha sad :(
Post by: Vattic on July 19, 2012, 06:33:40 am
Buddha sad :(Because of all this talk of souls? (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm)
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 19, 2012, 07:18:55 am
Post by: Karlito on July 19, 2012, 07:48:14 am
The shape is uneven, from what I think at least. It cannot be a regular shape; that would violate our theory that dark matter fuels expansion.Dark energy. Dark matter is something different. I'm not really sure what you mean by uneven, but most of our theories assume the universe is basically the same throughout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle).
Quote
In some areas of the universe, space is beginning to collapse and Crunch, because of a lack of dark matter. In other areas it is expanding, due to a higher concentration of dark matter.The expansion is pretty even throughout the visible universe, actually. We're approaching the Andromeda galaxy rather than expanding away from it because the gravitational attraction between the galaxies overpowers the expansion, but only because of the (relatively) small distance between the galaxies.
Quote
The universe in my mind, forms a spherical shape at a macro level, but different areas are in states of wax and wane.Observations of the microwave background radiation seem to indicate that the universe is actually flat or planar. Uh, the geometry of the space-time is flat, we're obviously not living on a 2D plane. This shape is interesting because it means it's possible for the total energy of the universe to be zero, and really that's the only sensible way it could be for a universe to spontaneously arrive out of nothing.
Post by: DarkWolfXV on July 19, 2012, 08:04:16 am
I am atheist, so i dont believe in god, why? To me, he does not exist, because why all the hate, evil, death, brutal killings, rapes.
It seems that there i actually the most of evil made by those whose "God" would not want them to do any evil. For example, catholics in Poland, you would think their belief is true,(at least most people i met) but they are totally racist, do not respect other religions, ignorant, and sometimes stupid. In my eyes they actually fuck all the rules but "believe" to not be rejected by others.
Im going to quote a philosopher here:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh the evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God" - Epicurus
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, about the soul, i dont know what to think, but always when i look in space it makes me sad after long time of looking at it.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 09:17:46 am
But Theist, either abandon and make up a new religion or splinter. It all seems rather arbitrary. Why havent yall concluded which religion is actually the more accurate one?
Post by: anzki4 on July 19, 2012, 10:32:22 am
Allow me to tell you the tale of Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage). Phineas was a railroad foreman, a favored and efficient one. One day, dear Phineas ended up having his skull impaled by a tamping iron, destroying his left frontal lobe.Just randomly popping here to point out that above isn't proof that soul doesn't exist. (Note: I do not believe in souls.) Brains could be just an organ interpreting the soul and if that organ is damaged it cannot read the soul correctly.
Despite this, Phineas survived his injury, but there were consequences. He became prone to unjustified anger and impatience, and was no longer efficient at his job or favored by his fellows. Many of them described him as having become a different person.
Why? Because the mind is a projection created by the brain, and if the brain is damaged, the mind is damaged to fit. There's nothing supernatural about any of it.
Example: "Soul makes your arm move" vs. "Soul makes your brain send your arm the command to move."
EDIT: Whoops, just realized that this was discussed earlier in the thread already... Carry on.
Post by: cerapa on July 19, 2012, 11:04:27 am
But this just for practical purposes. For philosphical purposes the question of a soul is an interesting one.
As for god, the whole "god is evil" thing is quite moot in my opinion, considering humans have created many, many lesser beings whose existential purpose is simply to die for our amusement. I mean, the AIs of mooks are generally pretty standardized so they dont actually die b....wait, thats a soul isnt it?
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 11:12:41 am
*Didn't read the 5 previous pages*
All religious arguments are silly.
I believe in both Religion and Christianity: God created monkeys, and it all went downhill from there. 8)
Some people are here trying to learn, not watch a flame war, thank you very much. This is the kind of thing that starts pig-ignorant fights. I'd ask that no one post like this again. This is a delicate subject, you should read the thread before jumping in to piss everyone off.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 11:23:41 am
Post by: Yoink on July 19, 2012, 11:32:10 am
Sure, I have my own feelings and opinions on theological matters. It's a favoured topic of my inner voices, after all.
I just don't see how any good can come of this thread. :-\ It's not that it's in danger of becoming a flame war/argument... I'm just not sure where else a thread on religion can go. *shrug* Shutting up now.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 11:35:44 am
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 11:48:30 am
Which is why I decided to back out of the discussion for the time being. Doesn't mean I don't want to hear what these people have to say, it just means I can't trust myself to be a behaved participator for the moment.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 11:49:18 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 19, 2012, 11:52:14 am
But this just for practical purposes. For philosophical purposes the question of a soul is an interesting one.even for a philosophical discussion, an object you would call soul would have to be defined. that's my main beef with mystical concepts; i'm ok with them being mystical, metaphysical, unprovable even, but they're not defined at all. words without a proper definition are worthless. how do you distinguish a non intervening creator from a scientific principle? how do you distinguish a ghost from a life form based on another substance other than matter? must a soul be immortal and immutable? and if it doesn't, can we accept the specific chemical configuration that defines a person's personality as a soul?
if you define a word broadly enough, anything can fit in it, and by poking holes into their mythologies, science has been pushing the mystics to take up increasingly abstract and increasingly meaningless concepts...
Post by: alway on July 19, 2012, 12:15:27 pm
The other problem is we know the brain does, at the very least, have a major effect on who we are as well as being responsible for sending the signals to our body to commit any action, be it walking or chewing; not even someone with a strong belief in souls can refute this obvious fact. Additionally, for the claim of the soul to have any sort of interaction with our body (and anything, including personality or actions falls under this broad category of interaction), there must be some transition point. By very definition, in order for this transition point to be effected by a cause outside of known physics, we should observe strange energy readings/effects which violate known physics; because if we didn't, it would be explainable using known physics.But this just for practical purposes. For philosophical purposes the question of a soul is an interesting one.even for a philosophical discussion, an object you would call soul would have to be defined. that's my main beef with mystical concepts; i'm ok with them being mystical, metaphysical, unprovable even, but they're not defined at all. words without a proper definition are worthless. how do you distinguish a non intervening creator from a scientific principle? how do you distinguish a ghost from a life form based on another substance other than matter? must a soul be immortal and immutable? and if it doesn't, can we accept the specific chemical configuration that defines a person's personality as a soul?
if you define a word broadly enough, anything can fit in it, and by poking holes into their mythologies, science has been pushing the mystics to take up increasingly abstract and increasingly meaningless concepts...
This idea was original envisioned century/s ago, and it was expected we would therefor find a sub-organ in the brain which acted like a remote control car's receiver; but for interaction with an external soul. No such region of the brain was found. The idea was then posited that perhaps it wasn't a single centralized region of control, but rather was distributed into special nodules or cells clusters in the brain. No such thing was found. So it was then posited that perhaps sub-cellular quantum randomness was at play. However, this too would have been detected as vast statistical anomalies in the brain; nerve cells consist of so many atoms as to render such quantum effects either nonexistent or such obvious statistical anomalies as to be immediately recognizable. No such thing was found.
Without this very critical interface between the nervous system and the soul, the entire idea of a soul being involved with any actions done by the body is blown out of the water. At the very most, you could have a 1-way transmission from physical universe to magic-soul-universe, as we would, and haven't, been able to observe a transmission from the magic-soul-universe to the physical universe.
Furthermore, aspects of your mind can be not only disabled (as would be case in a remote-control-body soul scenario), but can be fundamentally changed by changing the brain. As the previously mentioned case of Phineas Gage brings up, the destruction of part of the brain completely changed his personality. Similarly, modern experiments using electromagnets have temporarily disabled parts of the brain. They have even changed people's sense of morality temporarily using such systems. Mind altering drugs will also quite literally alter your mind; be they the illegal sort or prescribed mood-changers.
In summary, dualism is dead. You are the meat in your head.
Post by: Descan on July 19, 2012, 01:44:36 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on July 19, 2012, 01:48:46 pm
Burden of Proof
Many times I hear people saying "don't ask me to prove you wrong." Which is a fair thing to say... but it's not always in response to people actually asking to be proven wrong.
I'm agnostic. I make no claim. I put no weight behind any of my arguments; they're all idle musings, random hypotheses. The most you'll get out of me is gut feeling, and "this is how I'd like it to be." But if pressured, I will NOT put any real support behind any specific assertion.
More than once I've been responded to with people trying to shove burden of proof on me (not here, thankfully). Trying to get me to provide evidence when the very heart of my position is that there IS no evidence*. These people are silly, thinking they don't have to defend their arguments. Hypocrites doing exactly what they accuse others of doing: circular logic claiming self evidence.
So let's get something straight: Burden of proof lies on those making a claim. Those saying "this is how it is." It doesn't matter WHAT the claim is, just so long as the claim is presented as a statement of fact. Atheism, theism, anything about the nature of the afterlife or supernatural, all of it. If you make a claim about it, just as if you claim knowledge or fact about anything, then you provide evidence**. Not anyone else. I don't care if your position is under the label "true" or "false," "right" or "wrong." It is not self evident***.
*Exceptions:
1) Religions that claim something empirical. That is something that can have evidence for or against it, proven right or wrong. IE, this dude at this period of time did this thing.
2) Contradictions. Logical incompatibilities within a religion (or other theory concerning the supernatural) can be used as evidence that it's wrong, or at least flawed. IE, invisible pink unicorns.
**Reasons you might not need to provide evidence:
1) Not claiming knowledge. Essentially your claim carries as much weight (honestly, even less) as the claim that the horse you bet on will win the race. IE, belief or hope.
2) Not claiming belief. This carries even less weight than #1, if that were possible. IE, idle musings.
***:
Invariably someone's going to counter this with a teapot. So I'll respond to it right now. There are some questions where the answer makes no practical difference. No matter your conclusion, your perception of the world is unchanged and you'll do nothing different. That's fine. However, while "may as well be false/true" is practically identical to "is false/true," it is not actually the same. It is a fallacy to jump from lack of knowledge -> knowledge. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, and thus claim belief, but you can never claim knowledge through this.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 19, 2012, 02:01:57 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 19, 2012, 02:33:14 pm
Rant time! I'm on the offensive here, so feel free to stand up and defend yourself here if I'm attacking your position.What's the point of defending yourself against someone who says that they "put no weight behind any of [their] arguments" :P?
More seriously, most atheists if pressed (this includes Dawkins, incidentally) will say that they are slightly agnostic, but to such a tiny degree it isn't really worth caring about. I agree, as I'd rather reserve the label "agnostic" for things where I genuinely feel the evidence is insufficient or conflicted rather than every unfalsifiable idea ever.
Post by: Karlito on July 19, 2012, 02:40:40 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 02:42:28 pm
Post by: Hiiri on July 19, 2012, 02:43:20 pm
So let's get something straight: Burden of proof lies on those making a claim. Those saying "this is how it is." It doesn't matter WHAT the claim is, just so long as the claim is presented as a statement of fact. Atheism, theism, anything about the nature of the afterlife or supernatural, all of it. If you make a claim about it, just as if you claim knowledge or fact about anything, then you provide evidence**. Not anyone else. I don't care if your position is under the label "true" or "false," "right" or "wrong." It is not self evident***.
How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.
Post by: cerapa on July 19, 2012, 02:58:41 pm
How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.There are two possibilities you currently see: "There is no god" and "There is a god". Both of them are claims. The middle position you seek is "I am uncertain about the existance of gods." Which is not a claim, but a lack of one. In my case it acts as the negative claim for practical purposes, simply for being, more practical as far as I understand.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 19, 2012, 03:08:10 pm
How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.There are two possibilities you currently see: "There is no god" and "There is a god". Both of them are claims. The middle position you seek is "I am uncertain about the existance of gods." Which is not a claim, but a lack of one. In my case it acts as the negative claim for practical purposes, simply for being, more practical as far as I understand.
Here's something interesting: Even if you can't know if God exists, there is something about God that we definitely do know, namely that there is no observable strong evidence for God. Because if there were, we'd know about it. Simply put: The existence of atheists disproves the influence of God.
Post by: cerapa on July 19, 2012, 03:19:07 pm
There is always the possibility of god messing with our perceptions to make us not believe in it. But that is kinda a problem with empirical science that cannot be fixed. Probabilities and stuff get weird when your perceptions might be greatly altered.How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.There are two possibilities you currently see: "There is no god" and "There is a god". Both of them are claims. The middle position you seek is "I am uncertain about the existance of gods." Which is not a claim, but a lack of one. In my case it acts as the negative claim for practical purposes, simply for being, more practical as far as I understand.
Here's something interesting: Even if you can't know if God exists, there is something about God that we definitely do know, namely that there is no observable strong evidence for God. Because if there were, we'd know about it. Simply put: The existence of atheists disproves the influence of God.
And that is why I am philosophically agnostic. For practical purposes we are already screwed if we were altered like that, so we gotta go with the axiom that our perceptions are correct.
Post by: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 03:20:35 pm
How is not believing something "making a claim"? You're either a theist or an atheist, there is no position in the middle. You either believe a claim or you don't.There are two possibilities you currently see: "There is no god" and "There is a god". Both of them are claims. The middle position you seek is "I am uncertain about the existance of gods." Which is not a claim, but a lack of one. In my case it acts as the negative claim for practical purposes, simply for being, more practical as far as I understand.
This bolded part does not quite accurately represent the various possibilities related to the question of divine existence and errs a bit in its classification of the commitment behind certain middle positions. There is often a claim that Atheists* make. The claim most Atheists make is that Theists have not demonstrated the existence of something which meets the common definitions of a deity. While there is an element of uncertainty within that, it is inaccurate to cast the propositions of existence versus non-existence in a manner that suggests roughly equal probabilities. It is also a positive assertion which can be measured and judged (i.e. have theists provided evidence or not?). /nitpickery
* particularly those who self-identify as Atheists, but might more accurately be called Agnostic Atheists.
EDIT:
Quote
There is always the possibility of god messing with our perceptions to make us not believe in it. But that is kinda a problem with empirical science that cannot be fixed. Probabilities and stuff get weird when your perceptions might be greatly altered.
And that is why I am philosophically agnostic. For practical purposes we are already screwed if we were altered like that, so we gotta go with the axiom that our perceptions are correct.
This can also be gotten around by not making an absolute truth claim about everything. Rather, the only claim Empiricism needs to make is that from our perspective there to be a shared reality which we can observe and following its patterns has worked best for predicting its future. Whether this is the only reality thus becomes irrelevant, as it is the only one which can be shown to have an effect on us.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 19, 2012, 03:25:23 pm
Rant time! I'm on the offensive here, so feel free to stand up and defend yourself here if I'm attacking your position.
Burden of Proof
Many times I hear people saying "don't ask me to prove you wrong." Which is a fair thing to say... but it's not always in response to people actually asking to be proven wrong.
I'm agnostic. I make no claim. I put no weight behind any of my arguments; they're all idle musings, random hypotheses. The most you'll get out of me is gut feeling, and "this is how I'd like it to be." But if pressured, I will NOT put any real support behind any specific assertion.
More than once I've been responded to with people trying to shove burden of proof on me (not here, thankfully). Trying to get me to provide evidence when the very heart of my position is that there IS no evidence*. These people are silly, thinking they don't have to defend their arguments. Hypocrites doing exactly what they accuse others of doing: circular logic claiming self evidence.
So let's get something straight: Burden of proof lies on those making a claim. Those saying "this is how it is." It doesn't matter WHAT the claim is, just so long as the claim is presented as a statement of fact. Atheism, theism, anything about the nature of the afterlife or supernatural, all of it. If you make a claim about it, just as if you claim knowledge or fact about anything, then you provide evidence**. Not anyone else. I don't care if your position is under the label "true" or "false," "right" or "wrong." It is not self evident***.
I do not believe that "God" describes a thing that exists. That is not making a positive claim. That is the absence of a positive claim. I agree that there is no evidence for or against God's existence, and given that, I assume the null hypothesis.
Count me down as another who doesn't like agnosticism when it comes to things like this. For one, I have a hard time believing people who claim to not have an opinion here. When you say "I put no weight behind my arguments, they're just idle musings and I won't support any assertions" I hear "I want to play poker with no chips on the table." If you want to debate, own your arguments, don't JAQ off (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 03:38:05 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 04:25:27 pm
Post by: Glowcat on July 19, 2012, 04:45:41 pm
The default position, EG rejection, isn't an assertion.
I'm not sure if I can get behind that if the rejecting party has encountered evidence. Otherwise how would one tackle questions where one side denies evidence without making the effort to prove the evidence is insufficient or the other person is drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence? To reject and remain rational requires at least some effort on the part of the person rejecting existing evidence, and thus I believe it would be up to them to show why the evidence does not lead to the other person's conclusion.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 05:00:57 pm
Denying evidence isn't taking the default position.The default position, EG rejection, isn't an assertion.
I'm not sure if I can get behind that if the rejecting party has encountered evidence. Otherwise how would one tackle questions where one side denies evidence without making the effort to prove the evidence is insufficient or the other person is drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence? To reject and remain rational requires at least some effort on the part of the person rejecting existing evidence, and thus I believe it would be up to them to show why the evidence does not lead to the other person's conclusion.
Default Position only comes into play when there is lack of evidence.
If any thiest has ever match their burden of proof then there wouldnt be multiple religions.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 19, 2012, 05:59:55 pm
There's just as much evidence for or against fairies, magic, and all sorts of other things, but agnostics are never agnostic about those. Maybe the wizards are just really good at using their magic to hide from us. You never know!
I mean, I guess what kaijyuu is saying here
Invariably someone's going to counter this with a teapot. So I'll respond to it right now. There are some questions where the answer makes no practical difference. No matter your conclusion, your perception of the world is unchanged and you'll do nothing different. That's fine. However, while "may as well be false/true" is practically identical to "is false/true," it is not actually the same. It is a fallacy to jump from lack of knowledge -> knowledge. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, and thus claim belief, but you can never claim knowledge through this.is that the existence of god is important enough to warrant the doubt? But I'd say the existence of magic would be pretty important too.
I'm pretty sure the importance of god's existence is purely the result of living in a religious society. If there were no religious people, someone going "hm, there might be a god" would seem pretty silly. But a lot of people view agnostics as atheists who aren't jerks, or stuff like that, so I can see the pressures of still wanting to leave the possibility. And then there's people who were raised religiously who don't want to give up religion, which (from what I've heard) seems understandable since a lot of people feel really sad when they stop believing.
I might be wrong, and I'll admit that personal philosophy is definitely more complicated than that, but I think it's still a significant part.
Post by: Vattic on July 19, 2012, 06:52:44 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 06:56:40 pm
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 10:25:26 pm
This is always my question to agnostics: why does god get a special evidence pedestal where you have to have disproving evidence to not believe it?
There's just as much evidence for or against fairies, magic, and all sorts of other things, but agnostics are never agnostic about those. Maybe the wizards are just really good at using their magic to hide from us. You never know!
I mean, I guess what kaijyuu is saying hereInvariably someone's going to counter this with a teapot. So I'll respond to it right now. There are some questions where the answer makes no practical difference. No matter your conclusion, your perception of the world is unchanged and you'll do nothing different. That's fine. However, while "may as well be false/true" is practically identical to "is false/true," it is not actually the same. It is a fallacy to jump from lack of knowledge -> knowledge. You can come to whatever conclusion you want, and thus claim belief, but you can never claim knowledge through this.is that the existence of god is important enough to warrant the doubt? But I'd say the existence of magic would be pretty important too.
I'm pretty sure the importance of god's existence is purely the result of living in a religious society. If there were no religious people, someone going "hm, there might be a god" would seem pretty silly. But a lot of people view agnostics as atheists who aren't jerks, or stuff like that, so I can see the pressures of still wanting to leave the possibility. And then there's people who were raised religiously who don't want to give up religion, which (from what I've heard) seems understandable since a lot of people feel really sad when they stop believing.
I might be wrong, and I'll admit that personal philosophy is definitely more complicated than that, but I think it's still a significant part.
The problem I'm having with your argument is that your are comparing something that would very much be physical (as governed by rules defined in nature) to something metaphysical. You can't prove or disprove something that exists outside of the rules because you have nothing to compare it to. And, granted, our current understanding of physics could be completely wrong, but until something can come along and objectively disprove it, it's what we've got (much like disproving God).
Post by: alway on July 19, 2012, 10:36:03 pm
The problem I'm having with your argument is that your are comparing something that would very much be physical (as governed by rules defined in nature) to something metaphysical. You can't prove or disprove something that exists outside of the rules because you have nothing to compare it to. And, granted, our current understanding of physics could be completely wrong, but until something can come along and objectively disprove it, it's what we've got (much like disproving God).For a deistic, non-intervention god, yes. But in which case it doesn't matter any more than if I were to claim The Great Old Ones live in a space-between-spaces, watching the universe with a malevolent gaze. For an interventionist god, as is the case for most religions, the are usually empirical claims are made which are falsifiable. Faith-healing/prayer healing is one which comes to mind immediately. An empirical claim is made: praying for someone will help them get better. Studies/tests can then be done, and they have. And then these show the claims to be false.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 19, 2012, 10:37:58 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 19, 2012, 10:41:08 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 19, 2012, 10:56:16 pm
There's actually a thought experiment re: free will regarding something like that, though I forget the exact set up and name. The thing with the possible -- yet not occurring -- intervention... does it still count as free will if, had you made a different decision, Interventionist X would have forced you to do otherwise? You never actually do anything to make Ix step in, etc. Sleepy and can't remember the whole thing. Has a name, involves remote controls or tv remotes or some such.
Parallel being, does it still count as non-existent if, were it somewhere else, it would interact?
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 11:02:24 pm
What about something that's able, but factually does not interact with anything? Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that? It would be irrelevant, obviously, but would something that simply is incidentally outside the light cones of everything else, in perpetuity, be nonexistent?
There's actually a thought experiment re: free will regarding something like that, though I forget the exact set up and name. The thing with the possible -- yet not occurring -- intervention... does it still count as free will if, had you made a different decision, Interventionist X would have forced you to do otherwise? You never actually do anything to make Ix step in, etc. Sleepy and can't remember the whole thing. Has a name, involves remote controls or tv remotes or some such.
Parallel being, does it still count as non-existent if, were it somewhere else, it would interact?
Except, according to our math that may or may not be correct, but for the sake of argument let's say it is, there is nothing at the edge of the universe because the edge of the universe is the edge of reality. The reason the universe expanding was such an amazing concept is that it's expanding into space that only exists once it's expanded into. Now, if we're going into parallel realities, those might not necessarily have the same rules that our universe abides by, and could in fact explain the existence of God, in that it provides a location in means.
Now, the free will and intervention thing ties into the Judeo-Christian idea (if not original, than popularized) of predestination. It extends from an omnipotent God (something that supposedly can't exist at the same time as free will, due to knowing what happens before it happens. Such an argument falls apart if you bring in different observations of the movement of time, which a being metaphysical could have.).
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 11:06:38 pm
So perhaps god just runs on imaginary time. :P
Post by: Prometheusmfd on July 19, 2012, 11:07:44 pm
Post by: Karlito on July 19, 2012, 11:12:30 pm
What about something that's able, but factually does not interact with anything? Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that? It would be irrelevant, obviously, but would something that simply is incidentally outside the light cones of everything else, in perpetuity, be nonexistent?
It's not a silly idea at all, since there are, in fact, pretty good reasons to believe that entire galaxies exist outside the sphere of the observable universe which are moving away from our own at faster than the speed of light. I suppose in some sense, being completely causally disconnected, they don't exist, but in another sense, they're certainly real.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 19, 2012, 11:13:58 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 19, 2012, 11:21:23 pm
Claiming 'not rejection not accepting' isn't a more suitable ground to hold, because it doesnt do anything that the default position already does. It just tries to take an invented middle ground that doesn't do with anything else.
Post by: alway on July 19, 2012, 11:29:11 pm
So, like the square root of negative one minutes?Perpendicular, yes. Also similar to quaternions; those represent 3 perpendicular spatial directions using the sets of imaginary numbers i, j, and k, each of which are imaginary, but also perpendicular to one another. In this case, imaginary time is useful because it smooths out singularities from equations. And assuming the theory behind it is correct, it allows us to figure out things we otherwise couldn't; like what goes on inside a black hole, as well as explaining the birth of a universe from nothing.
Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that?This is a misconception about the expansion of the universe. The whole thing stretches out, like a rubber band, rather than an adding of material to the edges. Which leads to another misconception; the universe, while finite, is also without boundary in a similar way to the surface of a sphere; so it has no edges.
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 20, 2012, 03:49:08 am
I would furthermore state that the prevalence of the idea that "Atheists and theists are both wrong because they think they know something, only agnostics aren't stepping over the line because we aren't claiming anything" is a variant on the golden mean fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation).
I disagree. If the agnostic position were chosen because it's 'in the middle', then yes, but with the reason you've provided, I don't see how it's an example of that at all.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 20, 2012, 04:02:43 am
Post by: Hiiri on July 20, 2012, 04:26:34 am
Nobody has knowledge of gods, even if they claim to have. If they had knowledge of them, they should be able to demonstrate it to everyone else. If they can't demonstrate it, how do we know it's not just a brain damage?
If a person says "There is no God", he's most likely saying it in the sense as anyone would say about Santa, not in the "absolute sense" everyone keeps obsessing about. He could be wrong, but it is the reasonable assumption to say there is no Santa, since this proposition has not been shown to be true. When was the last time you heard someone shout out: "YOU CAN'T PROVE THERE'S NO SANTA!"
In my ears, if you say: "I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic" is same as you'd say: "I'm not an atheist, I'm blonde"
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 20, 2012, 05:54:00 am
He probably meant a particle moving away from the edge of observable universe - i.e. a de facto horizon.Say some particle a sufficiently large distance outside the expanding edge of the universe moving away from it at the speed of light, or some silly shenanigan like that?This is a misconception about the expansion of the universe. The whole thing stretches out, like a rubber band, rather than an adding of material to the edges. Which leads to another misconception; the universe, while finite, is also without boundary in a similar way to the surface of a sphere; so it has no edges.
Of course, to answer Frumple's question, the existence of such entities can be indirectly proven* by observations within the bubble. In other words, these particles follow the rules as we know them.
*don't jump on that word, please.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 20, 2012, 09:26:55 am
Post by: Bauglir on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 am
This is always my question to agnostics: why does god get a special evidence pedestal where you have to have disproving evidence to not believe it?There's no special pedestal. God gets this treatment because there are people who already believe. In advance, it's not about popularity, but it's about the status quo - no reason to waste energy changing it without a good reason. There are all sorts of reasons to argue against a lot of particular religions or deities, but I don't actually think the existence or nonexistence of the relevant spiritual entities is one of them. Religiously-motivated violence, for instance, is a great one (useful only for religions that encourage violence, whether explicitly or through the actions of religious leaders with non-religious motives). You can approach that argument from similar axioms to the person you're talking to, since you can ground the whole thing in observable fact - you cannot logically prove the nonexistence of God to somebody who takes the existence of God to be axiomatic, and let's be honest here, as an unobservable entity, God can only even make sense as a fundamental assumption.
I'm not going to go out of my way to prove that fairies and wizards don't exist (I consider this a waste of my time, just as I do with regards God) without a situation in which that believe is actually being problematic. And even then it's entirely possible that I'll consider it easier to approach the whole thing sideways and leave the fairies and wizards belief intact and just argue that they aren't a necessary explanation for whatever the mystery is.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2012, 11:51:42 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2012, 12:08:27 pm
Does "faith" in the existance of something lead an individual to lack a required proof to belive in said thing?The definition of faith is belief without evidence, so yes.
Quote
I mean, I was certain the Higgs boson existed in a "faith" style manner before any experimental proof for it existed (save for the maths)...The Higgs Boson wasn't based on faith, it was based on the fact that without it the Standard Model was left incomplete, and a undiscovered particle with certain properties would be able to fill that gap. The alternative would be that the Standard Model is completely illegitimate and we had been looking at the whole thing from a very wrong angle.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2012, 12:18:44 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2012, 12:23:28 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 20, 2012, 12:27:23 pm
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 02:57:08 pm
To truly be an atheist, one must have absolute (100%) belief in that a god, deity, or something of similar nature does not exist.
To truly be a theist, one must have absolute (again, 100%) belief that a god, deity, or something of similar nature does exist.
For anyone in these definitions, that is the final answer. For them, the mystery is already solved. There is no wiggle room here; if you are an atheist, you absolutely do not believe in god. There is no doubt whatsoever in your mind.
To be an agnostic, one does not have absolute belief of the existence or non-existence of gods.
As such, an agnostic atheist would then believe a god does not exist, but accepts that one may (however small a chance). In this case, they would have anywhere between 50-100% belief in the non-existence of gods (if belief could be measured as a percentage. Perhaps this make this faulty logic? I don't think so myself). An agnostic theist would also then have between a 50-100% belief in the existence of gods. They would believe that a god exists, but their lack of 100% certainty makes them agnostic; because if you lack 100% certainty that god exists, then that missing percentage is the measure of your certainty that god does not exist.
What agnosticism is not is a 50/50 belief- that you are 50% certain god does exist, and 50% certain god does not exist. That is not what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is not a belief in the same way that atheism and theism are. I, for one, do not believe that anyone can be "agnostic" but not be an atheist or theist. Either you are an atheist, theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or whatever that 50/50 belief is.
But I'm sure that since everybody has their own little definitions of things, my explanation of this would be totally wrong to some people.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 20, 2012, 05:08:58 pm
Scientific Theories leaves holes but also predict what should go into those holes if the model is true. This is where predictive and explanatory power comes from with a model. The 'The Periodic Table of Elements' arranged itself with lots of empty spaces describing charaterisic of elements that wont be discovered for decades after its conception.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 20, 2012, 05:15:24 pm
My argument is not void at all.The Higgs Boson wasn't based on faith, it was based on the fact that without it the Standard Model was left incomplete, and a undiscovered particle with certain properties would be able to fill that gap. The alternative would be that the Standard Model is completely illegitimate and we had been looking at the whole thing from a very wrong angle.well, religious people are filling a gap (and a bloody big one, too), so to a certain extent, your argument is void.
Religions filling gaps with their fiction is baseless upon actual testable reality. The hypothetical postulation of a particle that did in fact turn out to be real after all in order to properly define a model of particle physics that we did not have observational completion of at the time of its creation is completely and utterly different because it is based off of a consistent observation of the universe. Up until recently the Higgs Boson's presence was simply inferred rather than observed, and as nothing had been done to disprove the Standard Model even with one aspect of it remaining elusive to us it remained the theory of choice and has indeed been reaffirmed through the observation of the Higgs Boson.
Meanwhile, two-fifths of my countrymen are trying to have a several thousand year old (and honestly rather boring) creation myth taught as being science even when the highest court of the land told them years ago that it wasn't going to fly.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 20, 2012, 05:16:37 pm
The Higgs Boson wasn't based on faith, it was based on the fact that without it the Standard Model was left incomplete, and a undiscovered particle with certain properties would be able to fill that gap. The alternative would be that the Standard Model is completely illegitimate and we had been looking at the whole thing from a very wrong angle.well, religious people are filling a gap (and a bloody big one, too), so to a certain extent, your argument is void.
No. The mathematical models said there would be another particle with the properties of the Higgs Boson, and they were attempting to confirm its existence. If I have a hole in my puzzle shaped like a puzzle piece, I would not be presumptuous to assume I'm missing a piece and go looking for it.
The God of the Gaps, on the other hand, looks for any gaps in current understanding, and then either shoehorns God into them or says the whole thing is wrong and my personal conception of God is responsible. There's a difference.
The Higgs Boson is falsifiable. God is not.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 20, 2012, 05:37:56 pm
note how I said 'to a certain extent'Your qualifier doesnt change the fact that its wrong.
I said that because
A) the full picture is more complex than that. and I'm too tired to think straight
B) it lets me cop out
Post by: Levi on July 20, 2012, 06:19:50 pm
But I'm sure that since everybody has their own little definitions of things, my explanation of this would be totally wrong to some people.
That is the definition I've always gone by.
Post by: Hiiri on July 20, 2012, 06:38:46 pm
And second, the percentages don't make any sense. What's it like being 72% sure and how is it different from being 59% sure? Either you accept the claim or you don't.
It's not about having different definitions. This common agnosticism definition simply does not make any sense. "Do you believe in a God?" "I don't know" only tells us you do not possess a positive belief in a personal god, which makes you an atheist, not agnostic. It seems people constantly mix "Do you believe in God?" with "Does God exist?" Former is knowable, latter is not.
Spoiler: Knowledge and belief (click to show/hide)
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 08:10:36 pm
It seems people constantly mix "Do you believe in God?" with "Does God exist?" Former is knowable, latter is not.
Using those two questions then, this is how I would define the religious terms:
A theist by definition would answer "yes" to both of those questions.
An atheist would answer "no" to both of those questions.
An agnostic would either answer "yes" or "no" to the first, and "I don't know" to the second.
However, it should be noted that the first question is, under normal circumstances, the same as the second. The agnostic response provides the exception to this, of course, but if this were any other similar question the two you posed would be exactly the same. That is because by asking "Does god exist?" you are also asking "Do you believe in god?". With the 2 questions you gave, a sane person cannot answer "yes" to one and "no" to another; they are either going to answer "yes" to both or "no" to both. It is only when the agnostic says "I don't know if a god exists" that you are required to ask "do you believe in god?" because answering the 2nd question with a yes or no automatically answers the first. When you ask someone if something exists, you are really asking them if they believe it exists (the exception, again, being the agnostic, but I'm too tired to reason that out with logic). While the questions are logically different, I suppose they are interpreted to be the same due to social and practical conventions.
And second, the percentages don't make any sense. What's it like being 72% sure and how is it different from being 59% sure? Either you accept the claim or you don't.
Perhaps I made a mistake in that regard. As far as my mind can tell me right now, there is not a qualitative difference between 72% sure and 59% sure. The point I was trying to make (but perhaps did not emphasize well enough) is that there is a qualitative difference between 99% sure and 100% sure. If you were 100% sure, while you may still be lacking real and factual proof, your certainty is so strong that you truly think the proof is there (regardless of whether it truly is or not).
Post by: Leafsnail on July 20, 2012, 09:48:13 pm
But I'm sure that since everybody has their own little definitions of things, my explanation of this would be totally wrong to some people.That's why most people use the generally accepted and used definition of things rather than making them up arbitrarily. As far as I can tell you're confusing lack of belief with belief in the opposite direction.
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 10:14:45 pm
But I'm sure that since everybody has their own little definitions of things, my explanation of this would be totally wrong to some people.That's why most people use the generally accepted and used definition of things rather than making them up arbitrarily. As far as I can tell you're confusing lack of belief with belief in the opposite direction.
But lots of people have little variations and spins on things. Not everybody refers to the definition of something from one specific dictionary. There are often nuances that people have on definitions, in my experience.
And in this case, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction.
To simplify this, let's distill this to the question "Is A true or false?". If you do not believe A is true, you automatically believe A is false. This is because of the binary nature of the question- it only has 2 possible answers with no in-between. So naturally, if you think one answer is incorrect then the only remaining answer must be correct in conclusion. "A is not true" is logically equivalent to "A is false".
Post by: TCM on July 20, 2012, 10:17:55 pm
If you apply faith to numbers, like a percentage chance in God, how do you measure it numerically?
And what if I say I'm completely Athiest, nothing else like Agnostic, but I don't have a 100% certainty in the non-existence of a deity(ies)?
This isn't math, I think all of real life is based on probability. If I think there is a 99.99999999% a car will strike me when I cross the road, do you think I am not completely firm in my decision to not cross it?
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 10:21:57 pm
And what if I say I'm completely Athiest, nothing else like Agnostic, but I don't have a 100% certainty in the non-existence of a deity(ies)?
Then you are not truly an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist. A true atheist must believe that a God does absolutely, with 100% certainty, not exist. Anything less than that is agnostic atheism.
If I think there is a 99.99999999% a car will strike me when I cross the road, do you think I am not completely firm in my decision to not cross it?
It is acceptable to make the assumption that you would be hit by the car, but you would still know that there is a chance -regardless of how extremely slight it is- that you would not be. Because of this, you can't say with 100% certainty that you will be hit, but it is acceptable to act as if you would.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 20, 2012, 10:25:18 pm
Intellectual Honest forbids me form stating there is a 100% chance of no gods, but I'm stil l pretty damn confident there isn't.
But why is the wiggle room important? The important part is acceptance of the claim. Either yes or no. Possibly more important if it effects and/or impacts your life.
And also this whole 'true XXX' just smells of the true scott's man fallacy for some reason.
Post by: MaximumZero on July 20, 2012, 10:32:13 pm
If this isn't your stance, you're not an Atheist, you're a Hollywood Atheist, or a Nay-theist.
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 10:33:48 pm
Why does it matter?
Intellectual Honest forbids me form stating there is a 100% chance of no gods, but I'm stil l pretty damn confident there isn't.
But why is the wiggle room important? The important part is acceptance of the claim. Either yes or no. Possibly more important if it effects and/or impacts your life.
And also this whole 'true XXX' just smells of the true scott's man fallacy for some reason.
I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing about/trying to prove. Could you rephrase your argument? Why does what matter?
Intellectual Honest forbids me form stating there is a 100% chance of no gods, but I'm still l pretty damn confident there isn't.
Maybe the world just doesn't accept my definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, because under my definitions the majority of peoples would be agnostic atheists/theists and only those of irrational nature would be true atheists/theists. But I believe that my way of defining the terms is most accurate.
Let me put it this way: for me, admitting that you don't know for sure one way or the other means you are some type of agnostic.
Post by: TCM on July 20, 2012, 10:35:20 pm
I want to point out one principle, the Heisenberg Priniciple. The movement and position of an atom can never be measured Simultainiously. Therefor, the distances between two atoms can never be absolutely measured. This means any numerical distance will never be absolutely accurate, because even if there is an error on even an atomic level, it is not absolute. If you take the distance of any objects, there will be an error to some degree no matter what you do.
Because of this, I do not believe in anything 100%, because that is a numerical position applied to reality.
I'll conclude: I do not have a 100% belief in God because I do not believe that there can be a 100% in anything.
Post by: Karlito on July 20, 2012, 10:37:34 pm
Post by: alway on July 20, 2012, 10:40:31 pm
In which can there are no atheists. It's a sliding scale; and not even an ardent atheist would be daft enough to claim THE ONE TRUE ANSWER. It's just relegated to the status of a theory stating there is a teapot which is too small to detect in orbit around the sun. Also akin to beliefs about logic and reasoning; which are themselves based in the entirely unprovable inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is necessary for proving statements like '1 + n = n + 1' as it effectively allows us to assume a no-boundary condition surrounding logic; that no matter how high 'n' gets, the laws governing the numbers do not change. There is no way to prove this sort of assertion; any attempt leads to circular reasoning. Thus when you talk about 'believing something 100%,' there should be no person who believes something like that 100%. Our very logic itself is based in an unproven assumption; a highly successful assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Again; it all comes down to the doubt surrounding a certain teapot.And what if I say I'm completely Athiest, nothing else like Agnostic, but I don't have a 100% certainty in the non-existence of a deity(ies)?
Then you are not truly an atheist. You are an agnostic atheist. A true atheist must believe that a God does absolutely, with 100% certainty, not exist. Anything less than that is agnostic atheism.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 20, 2012, 10:44:39 pm
And in this case, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction.You are wrong. Can you not see there is a middle ground where you don't believe that A is true and you don't believe that A false? Let's say there are two doors, A and B. One of them has a coin behind it.
To simplify this, let's distill this to the question "Is A true or false?". If you do not believe A is true, you automatically believe A is false. This is because of the binary nature of the question- it only has 2 possible answers with no in-between. So naturally, if you think one answer is incorrect then the only remaining answer must be correct in conclusion. "A is not true" is logically equivalent to "A is false".
Do you believe that the coin is behind door A?
Do you believe that there is no coin behind door A?
I've given you no information either way, so unless you take a gut feeling you can't hold either belief.
Maybe the world just doesn't accept my definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, because under my definitions the majority of peoples would be agnostic atheists/theists and only those of irrational nature would be true atheists/theists. But I believe that my way of defining the terms is most accurate.How can a definition be more or less "accurate"? It's only a matter of whether the word as you're using it fits what people understand it to mean (unless you're talking about the actual roots of the word, in which case I don't see how your definitions fit any better). You've just made up arbitrary definitions for three words (and also twisted the idea of belief a lot - it doesn't in any way imply certainty) and decided that everyone else is wrong for not using them.
Post by: TCM on July 20, 2012, 10:48:08 pm
Awwwww, you basically said what I did, except better.
Damn, the limitations of debating via mobile device.
Post by: _DivideByZero_ on July 20, 2012, 10:56:47 pm
I actually managed to reach a point of agreement with an atheist, and that was that atheism itself is just a belief, and so is theism, but both are often accompanied by a belief system of sorts.
I usually go with WLC's view that the default position is agnosticism (I don't know if p is true) and once you gain evidence for the truth or negation of the proposition, you can make a positive claim (p is true/untrue). It sounds more reasonable to me than concluding everything is false by default since one cannot make a conclusion without sufficient evidence. So in other words, atheists need evidence against there being an omniscient, omnipotent being to which the creation of the universe can be attributed to, and theists need evidence for it. That's what philosophers like WLC do though.
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 20, 2012, 11:07:53 pm
And in this case, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction.You are wrong. Can you not see there is a middle ground where you don't believe that A is true and you don't believe that A false? Let's say there are two doors, A and B. One of them has a coin behind it.
To simplify this, let's distill this to the question "Is A true or false?". If you do not believe A is true, you automatically believe A is false. This is because of the binary nature of the question- it only has 2 possible answers with no in-between. So naturally, if you think one answer is incorrect then the only remaining answer must be correct in conclusion. "A is not true" is logically equivalent to "A is false".
Do you believe that the coin is behind door A?
Do you believe that there is no coin behind door A?
I've given you no information either way, so unless you take a gut feeling you can't hold either belief.
My argument is not about that. My argument is that if I believe the coin is behind door A, I can not believe that the coin is behind door B. Or if I believe there is no coin behind door A, I must then believe the coin is behind door B. Thus, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction due to the binary nature of the circumstances. Only 2 answers and 1 is right, so not believing one answer is right automatically means you believe the other is.
Quick edit: I think I understand better what you are talking about. From what I gather, you believe that the middle ground is agnosticism, correct? But I think agnosticism is a middle ground in certainty rather than belief. See below.
Quote
Maybe the world just doesn't accept my definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, because under my definitions the majority of peoples would be agnostic atheists/theists and only those of irrational nature would be true atheists/theists. But I believe that my way of defining the terms is most accurate.How can a definition be more or less "accurate"? It's only a matter of whether the word as you're using it fits what people understand it to mean (unless you're talking about the actual roots of the word, in which case I don't see how your definitions fit any better). You've just made up arbitrary definitions for three words (and also twisted the idea of belief a lot - it doesn't in any way imply certainty) and decided that everyone else is wrong for not using them.
Maybe not so much "accurate" as "precise". It is more precise in that it is easier to identify which category a person would belong to. Mostly this is because there is some overlap and confusion with agnosticism and how it is related to atheism and theism. But I think that in my definitions, I have included both belief and certainty into them. My definitions (as on page 10) were based on answering these two questions: "Do you believe in god?" and "Does god exist?"
I defined the terms in this manner:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
In this way, you see I have mixed belief and certainty, but I do not think I confused them.
An atheist and theist both have belief and certainty. Their belief causes their certainty, and their certainty is part of their belief. When an atheist says "God does not exist" it is their belief, but they are certain it is true.
An agnostic then has belief but not certainty. An agnostic can believe gods exist or not, but is not certain that their belief is correct.
I'm seriously tired (I've been up for a few hours in this thread trying to reply to too many posts). Either I suck at logic, am too tired to comprehend logic logically, or a mix of both. I give up and go to sleep! No more posts for me!
Post by: TCM on July 20, 2012, 11:23:37 pm
I see where you come from, it's just that your statements of 100% proof don't have any bearings on my religious views, but your system is in opposite of my beliefs in probability and uncertainty based science and philsopohy.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 20, 2012, 11:27:48 pm
Post by: Supercharazad on July 21, 2012, 02:44:34 am
Also, one interesting thing to note, since matter can't be created or destroyed then the universe (or whatever is was, the singularity or something) must therefore be eternal, and could be considered a "god" depending on your criteria.
Post by: cerapa on July 21, 2012, 03:10:03 am
My argument is not about that. My argument is that if I believe the coin is behind door A, I can not believe that the coin is behind door B. Or if I believe there is no coin behind door A, I must then believe the coin is behind door B. Thus, lack of belief is belief in the opposite direction due to the binary nature of the circumstances. Only 2 answers and 1 is right, so not believing one answer is right automatically means you believe the other is.I what what. What, what.
Quick edit: I think I understand better what you are talking about. From what I gather, you believe that the middle ground is agnosticism, correct? But I think agnosticism is a middle ground in certainty rather than belief. See below.
Yes, that is called "mutually exclusive options", and works in just the way you described. If you replace "lack of belief" with "belief in a lack". Might seem like stupid wordplay, but its a very, very, very important distinction. The two are completely seperate, and I think peoples brains work differently somehow that they dont catch the distinction, its a common enough sight for that. Do you honestly think people have an opinion about and belief in(or against) everything?
Lets play by your terms too, since you threw agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism into the same pile, then pure agnosticism is in fact the middle of both. By your own definitions, not mine.
Post by: Vattic on July 21, 2012, 06:59:06 am
The problem is that you've come to your own definitions of words that are completely different to the actual accepted definitions (atheist being someone who does not believe in god, theist being someone who believes in god). I could decide that a Christian is someone who believes the Bible to be literally true, but that would cause confusion (even if it's "precise" in that I could tell you exactly who I think is a Christian), especially if I turn it around and decide that anyone who calls themselves a Christian must fit my definition.I see where The Mechanical Man is coming from and think you guys are getting hung up on the words.
Gnostic Theists believe in God and claim to know it's true. (A term I've read but isn't largely used to be fair.)
Agnostic Theists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism) believe in God but claim to not know for certain.
Gnostic Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_atheism) believe in no God and claim to know it's false.
Agnostic Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) believe in no God but claim to not know for certain.
These are all recognised terms. Usually Gnostic Atheism would be allied with Strong Atheism and Agnostic Atheism with Weak Atheism. You also have Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) to consider. In terms of debate the claim to knowledge is an important distinction. Without it and definite claims about the nature of God there is no debate.
Post by: The Mechanical Man on July 21, 2012, 07:14:57 am
Yes, that is called "mutually exclusive options", and works in just the way you described. If you replace "lack of belief" with "belief in a lack". Might seem like stupid wordplay, but its a very, very, very important distinction. The two are completely seperate, and I think peoples brains work differently somehow that they dont catch the distinction, its a common enough sight for that. Do you honestly think people have an opinion about and belief in(or against) everything?
Lets play by your terms too, since you threw agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism into the same pile, then pure agnosticism is in fact the middle of both. By your own definitions, not mine.
Yes, perhaps I do have a failing to understand the concept you describe. Because I do think everyone has a belief in or against everything. I do not believe pure agnosticism is a middle ground of belief. I have never met a person who, when asked "Do you believe in God?" says "I don't know". Wouldn't that mean that they still do or don't, but just don't know it? You could argue they still have an opinion on it, but don't know what it is yet. I suppose it depends on the wording of the question, for example, the question "Do I look fat in this dress?" is different than "Do you think I look fat in this dress?". Of course, those are exactly like the questions "Does god exist?" and "Do you believe god exists?".
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.
Atheism/theism is about belief.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is about certainty in knowledge.
So I've been under the impression so far that an "atheist" is really a gnostic atheist, and a "theist" is a gnostic theist. This is because they believe one thing, and have certainty of it/believe it to be knowable. An agnostic atheist/theist, then, would believe one thing, and have uncertainty/believe it to be unknowable. For me, agnostic/gnostic are more or less modifiers to the way in which someone believes- they cannot be independent of the atheist and theist terms. I don't think a person can be just a gnostic or just an agnostic- they must also be either an atheist or theist. You won't find a theist who is neither agnostic nor gnostic.
So, just to recap:
- Answering the question "Does god exist?" makes you either a gnostic or agnostic. The gnostic would say "yes" or "no", the agnostic would say "I don't know". This question is about knowledge and certainty. Gnostics would claim certainty, agnostics would claim uncertainty.
- Answering the question "Do you believe god exists?" makes you either a theist or atheist. The theist would say yes, the atheist would say no. (agnosticism has nothing to do with this question. Saying "I don't know" to this question does not make you agnostic, because agnosticism has to do with certainty in knowledge rather than belief)
Maybe my views are a personal failing of mine to understand certain concepts of logic, but I believe what I describe is correct.
And now that I feel I have finally come up with a clear way for you to see how I understand things, I officially declare myself done with this thread.
Post by: cerapa on July 21, 2012, 07:53:53 am
Yes, perhaps I do have a failing to understand the concept you describe. Because I do think everyone has a belief in or against everything.Ah, this sums up our differences pretty much. Our definitions seem to be in order.
Lets take the question "Do you believe in a god?"
Now, lets take another question "Do you believe in the lack of a god?"
Lets say we have a different situation and topic. Lets say you know that a ball is in a box, and you know that it is either red or blue. You have no further information.
Lets take the first question "Do you believe the ball is blue?"
The answer is, of course, no, you have no reason to assume the ball is blue rather than red. You believe it is possible that the ball is blue.
Lets take the second question "Do you believe the ball is red?"
The answer is the same as with blue, you have no reason to presume things. It is simply a possibility.
Thus the answer to both is thus no. You dont believe the ball is blue nor that it is red. You believe(actually, you know in this case) that the ball is either red or blue, which is another option entirely. A belief in possibility, rather than in certainty.
Basically there is another entirely different belief line, belief in possibilities rather than in certainties. You technically dont believe in either of the options, only that both options are possible. An answer of "yes", being a belief in certainty, would force the other to be a "no", but both can be a "no" at the same time, as neither are a belief in certainty.
EDIT: I love discussions where I learn things. The whole "belief in possibilities" came to me while writing this post and realizing that I wrote a sentence that was seemingly paradoxical ("I dont believe that the ball is blue nor that it is red."). Went WTF for a second there until I figured out where I went wrong.
Post by: Bauglir on July 21, 2012, 12:00:46 pm
Post by: Phmcw on July 21, 2012, 12:13:00 pm
At the question does god exist, I answer : what is god? Make being a weak atheist much easier in a debate.
Post by: _DivideByZero_ on July 21, 2012, 12:36:44 pm
@Bauglir This always happens. The only place you won't have people quibbling over definitions is a philosophy forum where only the occasional troll starts a definitions argument. Anywhere else you can't really have a "generic" theology discussion without having this kind of argument pop up time and time again.
Which is why I don't usually bother.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 21, 2012, 12:51:59 pm
These are the definitions I use:
Strong atheism: "God" does not describe a thing that exists. The existence of a thing describable as "God" can be determined empirically.
Weak atheism: Lack of belief that "God" describes a thing that exists. The existence of a thing describable as "God" cannot be determined empirically.
Agnosticism: Without further information the question of whether a thing described as "God" exists is moot. God cannot be determined empirically.
Ignosticism/Igtheism: "God" must be defined. If the definition is unfalsifiable, go to weak atheism
Theism's a bit more variable since there are so many conceptions of God. I'm igtheist. I'm not sure a true strong theism exists because if a being worthy of worship could be empirically proven we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And yes. "I don't believe in God" and "God does not exist" are separate and distinct standpoints in my view.
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 04:54:24 am
I'm floating in the limbo of agnosticism, where everything is subject to change. It's not that I don't believe in anything or don't see any wonder or mystery in the world. Quite the contrary.
I see awe and wonder in the mysteries that cannot be explained, the histories that have been lost forever, and the unpredictability of the amazing things that happen as the future comes. I see something incredible, baffling, immense in its profundity, and completely indescribable by the power of written and spoken language in the wonders of the mind.
If anything is godlike to me, if anything is to be worshipped by this skeptic former atheist who prefers to see before believing, it's to be found in the exploration of the full strangeness of the mind. It's probably not surprising coming from me.
Dreaming is a beautiful example. It requires no drugs (except the ones produced in your brain), you can do it every single night/morning without losing your grip on reality, bad dreams are much less common than bad trips, with practice the depth and detail is extremely impressive (with 3 in-depth dreams clearly remembered in a night in my case), and the potential for and frequency of bizzare situations and experiences in my dreams was HIIIIIGH when I was really into it.
I had a dream where I was blasting extremely powerful magical blasts at some kind of diabolical dragon monster, and I almost accidentally obliterated all my allies with my excessive show of force... But some old wise white bearded gandalf-like figure popped in at the last second and shielded them with his own magic.
The intensity of that experience was like no videogame or real event in my life. The blast was enormous and devastating in its proportion, and was RIGHT THERE. I've seen other such things in dreams, where the world was blown to pieces by an overzealous "final fantasy character" in a world full of final fantasy parties of varying classicness. Some guy comes up and is like "bahahaha ultra mega super bolt spell" or something, I really don't know what but that's what it looked like when it hit... It was like... *JAW DROPS!....* Immense flashes of light!!! Incredible lightshow indeed... complete with the world blowing to pieces and being tracked down by some bad guy on a floating chunk of world as the dream continued.
Sorry to get so off topic... :P I meant to say "I devote my spiritual exploration to the mind." In each one of our heads (if the idea that mind is physically stored and operated in the brain) there's something of godlike profundity and incomprehensible complexity. The sheer range of possible experiences and perceptions of our mind extends far beyond what's physically possible for our everyday bodies, and extends far beyond what one can even wrap one's mind around or explain in any language. It seems almost like a paradox that something believed to be inside our heads is incomprehensible by said head in its enormity. The mind cannot comprehend itself, it's so complex and strange.
I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itself, nor do my beliefs in the area of mind mesh with established science, or even measurable science. Science doesn't like the idea that two people experiencing the exact same hallucination detail for detail may be either exchanging or picking up information from outside, SOMEHOW.
Too spooky for science to explore the idea that "spirit" may exist indeed, or that mind may not entirely be internal.
I'm not a very popular kind of agnostic, I think. :P
Random note, who here has ever heard of psychedelic Christianity? There are churches in this world that worship Jesus and take psychedelic drugs in a religious context. They consult the Lord in person. :P I think that rocks.
Post by: DwarfMeister on July 22, 2012, 05:00:30 am
People seem interested in having a religious discussion, but we seem to lack a place for it right now. I like to think I burned myself out on internet religion debates in high school, so I think I can handle this.
Now, for those of you who don't know, atheism threads in the past have become huge megathreads of circular arguments and hatred. Honestly, I won't be surprised if this gets locked eventually. But let's try to have as much good discussion as we can, thanks.
Rules:
- Don't be a dick. Whether religious condemnation or atheistic condescension, we're all prone to it. Try not to do it please. No matter what your religious views, you're not enlightened. You're not smarter than everyone else.
- No flaming. Things here can get personal. If someone's not outright being a troll, step back and maybe think about it a little bit. Respond calmly, basically.
- If you don't understand something, feel free to ask people. Not everyone's going to understand religious views. But ask politely. Things like "How could you possibly believe that?" are breaking rule #1.
- Try to use citations wherever they're relevant. They're not required for things like personal philosophy, but bringing up links and relevant material is rarely a bad thing.
- Try not to rehash the same discussion over and over again. These arguments can get really circular, and a bit of that is inevitable but just try to avoid it if possible.
- Keep past threads out of this if possible. I know we're a small community, and I know you might recognize someone from a past thread, but it really shuts down discussion if someone posts once and they get five people going "Oh, you're that guy. I remember you. You said this dumb thing."
Feel free to make rules suggestions.
I believe in God. That is all I am going to tell you.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 22, 2012, 05:26:14 am
Thank you for your interjection. Why did you bring something up if you didnt want to talk about it?
I believe in God. That is all I am going to tell you.
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 06:00:13 am
How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
Not saying all atheists are fundamentalist, just saying that it's possible to have a fundy's level of unquestioning faith when you claim to have escaped religion into science. It's a pretty easy pattern of thinking to fall into, no reason it has to be exclusively the domain of traditional religion.
Not all atheists or people with an interest in science believe everything they hear from everybody in a labcoat. Some critically examine any claims and the methodology of scientific studies. Some admit that even a scientist can lie.
I used to have faith. Now I'm skeptical but don't consider science to be some kind of farce, just an imperfect human tool of reality exploration, capable of deluding itself and the public just like anybody is capable of being deluded in their imperfect methods of analysis.
Post by: Supercharazad on July 22, 2012, 06:16:57 am
Why is there no room in this equation for people who want some sort of proof before believing something? I believe air exists, because I can feel it. I believe electricity exists, because I've been shocked by it. I believe things are made of cells, because I have seen these cells with my own eyes under a microscope.
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.
One thing I thought was funny was that when on multiple occaisions I asked my Religion teacher (Catholic Grammar School) why Jesus didn't just show himself and prove that he exists, she said that he did it 2000 years ago therefore we must have faith and you must believe in him or you will burn in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. Why should I believe in the teachings of an ancient civilisation from 2000 years ago? Only 1000 years ago we still thought the Earth was flat, but anyone who has been high enough can tesitify that they can see the curvature of the Earth.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2012, 06:23:38 am
These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.
Quote
Some admit that even a scientist can lie.Everyone can lie, but scientists have little motive to lie about their studies. If you make a study that you know is wrong, then in peer-review another scientist will eventually discover in the process of peer-reviewing that you are, in fact, wrong and will expose that so they can take all the credit for discarding false information.
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.Do you not believe ghosts don't exist because you haven't been shown decisive proof that they don't? Of course not. You can't prove a negative. It follows that not believing in god is thus the default.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.
Quote
Only 1000 years ago we still thought the Earth was flat, but anyone who has been high enough can tesitify that they can see the curvature of the Earth.No, actually. Earth was widely known to be a sphere of some manner since the days of the Hellenistic Greeks. People in the past thinking Earth is flat is inaccurate.
Post by: DwarfMeister on July 22, 2012, 06:28:51 am
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 06:34:00 am
These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.QuoteSome admit that even a scientist can lie.Everyone can lie, but scientists have little motive to lie about their studies. If you make a study that you know is wrong, then in peer-review another scientist will eventually discover in the process of peer-reviewing that you are, in fact, wrong and will expose that so they can take all the credit for discarding false information.
*Facepalm to your facepalm*
There's a difference between rabid attacks and rational attacks. ;) Rabid attacks don't take into account logic, data, scientific method, etc. Rabid attacks consist of character assassination and other logical fallacies, personal insults, etc. A prominent climate science spokesman suggested that the homes of "deniers" should be burned down to save the rest of humanity. :P (hmmm isn't that bad for the environment by the way?) Many popular scientific dogma are highly incongruent with the data and don't employ the scientific method, but rather rely on grants fed by politically motivated institutions that seek to find a certain thing to be true rather than to find what the truth happens to be.
And unfortunately, peer review doesn't work that way. It happens to support whatever dogma is currently most widely believed. It has a tendency to block alternative views, not unscientific theories.
EDIT: By the way, if you don't pick up the party line and decide to investigate alternative theories in a valid scientific manner, BAM! You lose your career and reputation, grants, etc. No motive to lie? Reeeeeally?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2012, 06:40:05 am
There's a difference between rabid attacks and rational attacks. ;) Rabid attacks don't take into account logic, data, scientific method, etc. Rabid attacks consist of character assassination and other logical fallacies, personal insults, etc. A prominent climate science spokesman suggested that the homes of "deniers" should be burned down to save the rest of humanity. :P (hmmm isn't that bad for the environment by the way?)The radical opinions of a spokesman is irreverent to the actual science and scientists involved in climate change research.
Quote
Many popular scientific dogma are highly incongruent with the data and don't employ the scientific method, but rather rely on grants fed by politically motivated institutions that seek to find a certain thing to be true rather than to find what the truth happens to be.You're talking about think tanks. Think tanks are not science. (Usually.)
Quote
And unfortunately, peer review doesn't work that way. It happens to support whatever dogma is currently most widely believed. It has a tendency to block alternative views, not unscientific theories.What are you on about? Peer review does not support what is most widely believed, it supports what remains true in the face of repeated testing from multiple sources. Even if a more popular false theory exists, peer review ensures that it will be discarded and replaced by the more accurate one exists.
EDIT: By the way, if you don't pick up the party line and decide to investigate alternative theories in a valid scientific manner, BAM! You lose your career and reputation, grants, etc. No motive to lie? Reeeeeally?Do you know what happens if you establish an important new truth in science? Your career is immortalized. You get more grant money than you know what to do with. The rewards for important discovery are massive. There is no "party line" but what stands up to testing.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 22, 2012, 07:25:18 am
I can't believe you...How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.
Post by: Blargityblarg on July 22, 2012, 07:51:49 am
I can't believe you...How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.
I don't think it's that they're fundamentalist atheists, it's that they're atheists who are also fundamentalistic about some particular theory or whatever.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 22, 2012, 08:40:28 am
Many popular scientific dogma are highly incongruent with the data and don't employ the scientific method, but rather rely on grants fed by politically motivated institutions that seek to find a certain thing to be true rather than to find what the truth happens to be.Ok. Name me some "popular scientific dogma" which don't fit the data.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 22, 2012, 10:05:37 am
These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.
I don't know about you, but the scientists I know (myself included) don't call them theories. Wrong gets bandied about mostly (also psuedoscience, hat full of crazy, bollocks,asshattery, muthaf***in miracles etc :P ). To trot out the tired old statement, scientist don't use the word theory like laymen do (at least, not outside of casual conversation).
Now, yes science can be a bit cruel to new ideas. Look up the story of the guy that discovered quasicrystals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal) sometime; the guy was reduced to a near nervous breakdown. Aside from the obvious skepticism of outlandish claims by science in general, there are other reasons. There are people who have a lot invested in existing theories, and they don't like to see their theories fall by the wayside. More often, people don't want to lose the prestige of being associated with the field-leading theory; that, or simply because it can be frustating to have your life's work invalidated by some upstart.
What it isn't is a fiscal interest.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Now, as much as there is a stubborness in science (much as there is anywhere humans are involved), there is a saving grace; if your theory is correct, and testably so it will succeed. Yes it may be a long and painful process, but if we can't disprove it, even the most reticent will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new view.
I can't believe you...How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.
I don't think it's that they're fundamentalist atheists, it's that they're atheists who are also fundamentalistic about some particular theory or whatever.
Regarding "fundamentalist athiests", the label is a bit oxymoronic. Now, fanatical athiests, those exist; there are sadly athiests out there filled with missionary zeal, a complete lack of tact, and a rather abrasive nature. :-\
Like Dawkins. I respect the guy; he's an amazing orator, is humourous, and can construct brilliantly logical arguments. However, he is a horrible spokesperson for athiesm (which he has basically become, courtesy of his well-written, accesible popular-science books, frequent TV appearances, and vocal campaigning). In any debate, it is VITAL to avoid outright hostility and abuse; all that it achieves is reinforcing the Us Vs Them mentality in the opposition. Just because we athiests cop a lot of shit from the uneducated, doesn't mean we should call them all morons. :(
It's a lesson a lot of brand-new freshly-aware athiests need to learn as well.
FAKEEDIT: Actually, now that I think about it... there are athiests who become so for the wrong reasons; I've met a few online who declared as athiest pretty well purely to screw with their conservative parents. Those people were, objectively, terrible athiests, and gave the rest of us a bad name. They couldn't construct a rational argument to save their life, and resorted to personal attacks more often as a result. That said, they're rare, and I'm still not sure if you can call them fundamentalist, or just a-holes...
Post by: MaximumZero on July 22, 2012, 10:43:02 am
Post by: Leafsnail on July 22, 2012, 10:59:43 am
Post by: alway on July 22, 2012, 11:02:47 am
FAKEEDIT: Actually, now that I think about it... there are athiests who become so for the wrong reasons; I've met a few online who declared as athiest pretty well purely to screw with their conservative parents. Those people were, objectively, terrible athiests, and gave the rest of us a bad name. They couldn't construct a rational argument to save their life, and resorted to personal attacks more often as a result. That said, they're rare, and I'm still not sure if you can call them fundamentalist, or just a-holes...Those aren't atheists, those are theists in remission. :P
I say that because, about 10 years later, those will be the people standing up at the front of the church saying something to the tune of "I used to be a bad person, doing all these bad things, but then I let tha powwaaaah of jeeeebbbuuss into my life, and I bacame a better person!" and are a big part of continuing the discriminatory stereotype against atheists (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm) as 'evildoers and immoral scum.'
Post by: Hiiri on July 22, 2012, 12:09:50 pm
I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itself
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
THERE! You're an atheist, get over it.
Post by: palsch on July 22, 2012, 05:10:43 pm
A prominent climate science spokesman suggested that the homes of "deniers" should be burned down to save the rest of humanity.For one thing Zwick isn't especially prominent. I've followed the climate debate quite closely for a long time. He isn't anywhere near the central figures. He is also a strong advocate of free market solutions to climate change, something that isn't especially feasible given the actual scale of the problem.
That particular post was one of his free market ideas. Explicitly (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/19/a-tennessee-firemans-solution-to-climate-change/2/);
Quote
First, I’m not advocating anyone go out and burn someone’s house down, but am simply asking what to do if a house is already on fire and the owner is culpable. Do we save his house, or the houses of his neighbors? I added the phrase “until the innocent are rescued” in the eighth paragraph above after posting to make this point even more clear, but the comments keep flooding in. I can’t go changing text above, so I’m adding this addendum. Read it, then read the post, and then comment.Stupid? Somewhat. It's applying horrible libertarian ideals and hopefully unnecessary triage principles to climate change. The burning house metaphor was a bad one to use, especially given how easily it was taken out of context. But it wasn't a threat or call for violence.
We can make the analogy stronger by adding layers of complexity: IF a person intentionally sets fire to his own house — perhaps for insurance money — and that fire spreads to the neighbors, and the town has just one fire truck and four firemen, which house should they save first? Let’s assume the person told half the town of his intentions beforehand, so the firemen have a pretty good idea of what happened. They have some tough choices to make.
Turning back to the analogy, the people who owned the houses committed no crime — they just decided to save $75 by not paying the fire protection fee. They took a risk, and they suffered the consequences.
Anyone who acts to prevent preventive action on climate change is not only taking a risk, but also dumping the downside of that risk on the rest of us. What’s worse, it’s a dumb risk — one that you could argue faces 50:1 odds against winning (based on the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on this), but which has a marginal payoff at best.
Since people are taking risks that impact the rest of us, doesn’t it make sense to ask how the innocent should be made whole IF things go awry? Also, how do we differentiate between people who were acting in good faith but were swayed by deceit and people who were obfuscating the truth? In a sense, I’m asking you to put yourselves in the shoes of lawmakers and not of judges — let’s see if we can agree on the definition of a crime and what the penalty for that crime should be before we go trying to determine guilt or innocence.
If the denialists or whatever you want to call them really are acting in good faith, they won’t object to this even if they end up being wrong, because it only applies to people who can be shown to be disseminating patently and demonstratively false information. It’s also, obviously, an unworkable mechanism, but I thought maybe it would spark some interesting comments on how best to deal with externalities and the tragedy of the commons. Perhaps now?
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 08:04:44 pm
I can't believe you...How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.
Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.
There are flavours, dude, just like anarchy. There's no one anarchy, there's not even one Christianity. There are many varieties. Maybe I should have called this one scientific atheist fundamentalists, ones who tout the big bang as verified truth like it's been reproduced in a lab.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 22, 2012, 08:15:55 pm
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 08:22:10 pm
I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itselfI don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
THERE! You're an atheist, get over it.
:) I'd be inclined to agree to some extent that I'm an atheist, despite my agnostic tendencies. Did you think I have a problem with atheists?
I was referring to the kind who'll blindly believe a theory they haven't bothered to think critically about, tout that theory as absolute truth, and otherwise behave in an offensively religious manner. (Edit: while thinking they've evaded religion by believing a theory without checking if it's backed by sound evidence)
I used the term fundamentalist to separate these types of atheists from the milder ones who don't bother anyone, just like the milder Christians who don't make it their business to offend others.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 22, 2012, 08:23:35 pm
Atheist fanboys.my sleep deprived brain is struggling to tell if it's a joke or an insult...#
this annoys me.
Let's clarify:
There are flavours, dude, just like anarchy. There's no one anarchy, there's not even one Christianity. There are many varieties. Maybe I should have called this one scientific atheist fundamentalists, ones who tout the big bang as verified truth like it's been reproduced in a lab.
Those are what I'd call atheist fanboys.
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 08:28:25 pm
Was fun arguing, but mostly I just wanted to share a view and GTFO. :P Some may agree, some may disagree. This is to be expected.
Post by: Strife26 on July 22, 2012, 08:54:39 pm
Atheist fanboys.my sleep deprived brain is struggling to tell if it's a joke or an insult...#
this annoys me.
Let's clarify:There are flavours, dude, just like anarchy. There's no one anarchy, there's not even one Christianity. There are many varieties. Maybe I should have called this one scientific atheist fundamentalists, ones who tout the big bang as verified truth like it's been reproduced in a lab.
Those are what I'd call atheist fanboys.
I'd say that's a fair label to put on certain segments of the atheist population.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 22, 2012, 09:29:31 pm
Upon taking a few breaths, I'm just gonna say, I've posed my view, I've done a wee bit of arguing, but really I don't want to spend my weekend feeling like I'm at war with an opposing view. :P Conflict makes it hard for me to relax and enjoy the final hours of freedom before the next 8 hours of paid slavery commences.
Being at war with an opposing view would mean that you think it necessary to defend your view, which is entirely the wrong approach. You may defend your view as much as you can, but participating in an argument means that the aspects of your side of the conflicting viewpoint are wrong about 50% of the time, unless your argument is about belief in different logically sound and undisprovable concepts, in which case there isn't an argument. The point of an argument is to share as much knowledge as necessary for both participants to align their views, because given the same knowledge, two intelligent people will make the same conclusions. You can't go into an argument expecting both parties to agree on your viewpoint, because either the other person is stupid (in which case he will ignore your arguments just like he ignored the same arguments from other people already), or he has as good reasons to have a different viewpoint as you have reasons to have yours.
Post by: Tabbyman on July 22, 2012, 09:40:11 pm
Upon taking a few breaths, I'm just gonna say, I've posed my view, I've done a wee bit of arguing, but really I don't want to spend my weekend feeling like I'm at war with an opposing view. :P Conflict makes it hard for me to relax and enjoy the final hours of freedom before the next 8 hours of paid slavery commences.
Being at war with an opposing view would mean that you think it necessary to defend your view, which is entirely the wrong approach. You may defend your view as much as you can, but participating in an argument means that the aspects of your side of the conflicting viewpoint are wrong about 50% of the time, unless your argument is about belief in different logically sound and undisprovable concepts, in which case there isn't an argument. The point of an argument is to share as much knowledge as necessary for both participants to align their views, because given the same knowledge, two intelligent people will make the same conclusions. You can't go into an argument expecting both parties to agree on your viewpoint, because either the other person is stupid (in which case he will ignore your arguments just like he ignored the same arguments from other people already), or he has as good reasons to have a different viewpoint as you have reasons to have yours.
That's why I like to avoid arguements. It's easy to get into them yet they go nowhere, no matter how right either side is on what points and counterpoints they make. And it feels like war. Call me a hippy but I like peace. :P Peaceful disagreement is a complicated subject I haven't mastered by any means.
Edit: I mean, this is an atheism v. religion thread... It's expected to be full of conflict. :P Might as well be glad I manage to get on with my day without a flamewar of some kind. If I were looking for that, though, I'd go to 4chan.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 22, 2012, 09:54:26 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 22, 2012, 11:53:16 pm
Post by: Phmcw on July 23, 2012, 04:33:21 am
It is omnipotent, of sort, conscious, since we are conscious and part of it, and contain every possible information about himself, so omniscient (of sort).
Well, probably. Ask me a better question than "do you believe in god".
And no, I don't believe that the consciousness of the universe choose a random warlord/carpenter/sf writer/whatever to give us his grand scheme for humanity (that happen to match exactly the flavour of your sect).
Post by: EveryZig on July 23, 2012, 12:26:07 pm
Maybe I should have called this one scientific atheist fundamentalists, ones who tout the big bang as verified truth like it's been reproduced in a lab.[Kind of pedantic]
Reproducing in a lab is for testing effects, not for testing specific events.
For example, you cannot reproduce the French Revolution in a lab and nobody alive has seen it directly, but you can still say that it happened with a high degree of certainty because it is consistent with a large amount of testable evidence.
Saying that the Big Bang happened works on the same principle, just with different types of evidence (astronomy and physics rather than history and archeology). Arguing that the evidence is invalid or does not support the theory is one thing, but just saying "it hasn't been proved" about an established theory and leaving it at that really gets on my nerves.
[/Kind of pedantic]
Post by: Hanslanda on July 23, 2012, 01:03:44 pm
"God" is a concept so loaded that it's worthless. The universe is god, if you want to.
It is omnipotent, of sort, conscious, since we are conscious and part of it, and contain every possible information about himself, so omniscient (of sort).
Well, probably. Ask me a better question than "do you believe in god".
And no, I don't believe that the consciousness of the universe choose a random warlord/carpenter/sf writer/whatever to give us his grand scheme for humanity (that happen to match exactly the flavour of your sect).
Is it your belief that there is a god out there, that is consistent with the definition of a god as set forth by the Christian, Abrahamic, or Islamic faiths? If not, explain why. If so, explain why.
Do you believe there is a pantheon of gods following the definition of gods as set forth by the Greek, Roman, or Egyptian religions? If so, explain why. If not, explain why.
Do you believe that there is something out there that could match the description and definition of a god as set forth by the discussion in this topic, while retaining several of the main characteristics of the monotheistic descriptions of god, such as an ability to manifest in various forms and give messages to human beings directly and of its' own will, an ability to cause highly destructive events such as earthquakes, floods, locust swarms, or water transmutating into blood? If so, Etc.
Are these questions preferable and precise enough? :)
Post by: Supercharazad on July 23, 2012, 02:28:59 pm
I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itselfI don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
THERE! You're an atheist, get over it.
You quoted out of context.
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.
That is the quote with the other bits. I don't believe that he exists, or that he doesn't, because there is no solid evidence either way.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 23, 2012, 02:37:14 pm
That is the quote with the other bits. I don't believe that he exists, or that he doesn't, because there is no solid evidence either way.As before, there is no evidence "either way" for an infinite number of untestable ethereal concepts, but you don't give any of the others the golden mean treatment.
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 23, 2012, 04:36:34 pm
I personally hold that those professing the exisistance of anything have to produce the proof to back up thier convictions ("I will agree with the as of yet unproven idea if you can show me it is true"). I think it makes less logical sense for proof of the non-existance of something being needed to make a solid point ("I will only stop thinking this unproven idea if you can show to me it is wrong").
Post by: Graknorke on July 23, 2012, 04:45:32 pm
Yeah, blasting into a serious thread with childish namecalling. Clearly nothing can go wrong with this finely laid out scheme, it is completely foolproof and everything is perfect.
Hello.
The burden of proof lies with whoever has it, as far as I'm concerned anyway. If you have proof, then you put it forwards. Whether or not it's for your side, it's not particularly good sport to deliberately withhold information from the other side of the debate. Unless it's something serious like in court, then I would actually not have a problem with withholding evidence because it's all part of fucking over the subjectively moral legal system. Preventing the advance of knowledge is not a thing people should be doing though.
Really, both sides should be able to put forwards some proof, but the side it is demanded from should be those making the positive statement (My dog is grey, you ate the last slice of pizza, there is a god, electrons have negative charge). Because that just seems logical to me, I don't really have a good explanation for that one. It would just seem kind of odd to say "X is true, now prove me right".
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 04:49:09 pm
So, where do people feel the burden of proof lies? Or, at least, where should it lie?That's... not actually controversial, to any meaningful degree. Burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim, ferex an existence claim. No one with any actual ground -- at all -- seriously expects proof of non-existence. Just proof of existence. That's something that's been pretty well established in the last couple thousand years of logic and epistemological inquiry (of varying sorts). Would take access to material I don't actually have access to at th'mo to pull up the particulars of why that is so, but it's pretty much universally accepted, so far as I know.
I personally hold that those professing the exisistance of anything have to produce the proof to back up thier convictions ("I will agree with the as of yet unproven idea if you can show me it is true"). I think it makes less logical sense for proof of the non-existance of something being needed to make a solid point ("I will only stop thinking this unproven idea if you can show to me it is wrong").
What gets (much) trickier is what is accepted as sufficient evidence, what counts as proof. That can vary absolutely tremendously depending on who you're dealing with.
Post by: lemon10 on July 23, 2012, 05:08:54 pm
Quote from: Wikipedia's article on the Philosophic burden of proof
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]Any assertion places the burden of proof on the one who asserts it.
It doesn't matter if a claim is positive or negative, both saying "The sun is blue", and saying "The sun is not blue", both are assertions and both require proof.
Similarly saying "The bible is the absolute truth and the word of god" requires proof as does saying, "The bible is not the absolute truth and the word of god" (which can be pretty much proven by using logical inconsistencies and innacuracies in the text).
This does differ a bit from common sense however, since having to disprove/prove everything to a high degree of certainty with a large amount of proof is a bit ridiculous.
EDIT: Logically, this extends to existence claims (since they are claims) as well.
Saying: "You don't have a house", which is claiming something is non existent, isn't automatically true if the person you are saying it about doesn't have a sufficient amount of proof to prove it. You have to have a sufficient amount of proof to prove that he/she doesn't have a house.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 05:26:03 pm
Ding ding.Quote from: Wikipedia's article on the Philosophic burden of proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]Any assertion places the burden of proof on the one who asserts it.
It doesn't matter if a claim is positive or negative, both saying "The sun is blue", and saying "The sun is not blue", both are assertions and both require proof.
Burden of proof lies on those asserting non-existence if existence is the commonly accepted conclusion, or status quo. If you claim the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, you have to prove that now (though you wouldn't of a while back). You don't get a free pass just because your claim is in the non-existence pile.
So if you walk into a church and say "you're all wrong!", then it's up to you to make arguments, not them.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 05:26:40 pm
Post by: Graknorke on July 23, 2012, 05:28:52 pm
Of course, it would be a lot harder for everyone if you said your house was invisible, intangible, did not have any documentation and interacts with the world at only arbitrary points, then it would be very difficult for anyone to prove anything.
That is to say, it should really be expected for somebody with a positive claim to have absolute proof of it, and especially with existance claims, a negative proof would entail a sweep of the entire universe, which may or may not be infinite. Other things such as colour would be simpler for both parties though, where the biggest doubt would be vision problems with one of the participants.
It still to me just seems to make more sense to have the person making the positive claim provide evidence. Because, there will only be one circumstance under which something will be perfectly true, but many ways that same thing could be wrong. To prove something positive, it only needs to show that one example. To prove something negative, every single case needs to be shown as not being the case.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 23, 2012, 05:29:51 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 05:30:52 pm
To prove something positive, it only needs to show that one example.This depends very heavily on what the positive claim is. All Xs are Ys, ferex, is one of the common ones where that holds very much unture. Indoor ornithology and all that.
Post by: Graknorke on July 23, 2012, 05:35:05 pm
I could say "This box is blue", and you could prove it wrong by bringing over something a different colour and showing that the light they reflect is of the same wavelength. You have then proven that my box is not blue by proving it to be a different colour.
Negative proof is pretty much proving something that the claim cannot be true by proving something contradictory.
Or you could have, say, a ballpool. And you could say that one of the balls in there is smaller than the others. And I could prove you to be incorrect by measuring every ball and showing them to all have the same diameter.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 05:40:44 pm
It's not like going to a lot and checking if there's a house or not, because in this case the lot is completely out of your reach. You can't go there at all, can't see it, can't hear it, can't build something to detect it. Whether a house stands there or not is a question that can't be answered, and consequently, doesn't affect you.
Post by: lemon10 on July 23, 2012, 05:52:23 pm
I'd still say a positive claim should be expected to give more proof than a negative one. I mean, to prove "You have no house", I would have to check through an entire list of residences in the world and show that none were registered under your name, whereas to prove that you did have a house, all you would have to do would be show me it, and that you have the deeds to that house.You can't have absolute proof of anything (well, with some very minor exceptions (eg.
Of course, it would be a lot harder for everyone if you said your house was invisible, intangible, did not have any documentation and interacts with the world at only arbitrary points, then it would be very difficult for anyone to prove anything.
That is to say, it should really be expected for somebody with a positive claim to have absolute proof of it, and especially with existance claims, a negative proof would entail a sweep of the entire universe, which may or may not be infinite. Other things such as colour would be simpler for both parties though, where the biggest doubt would be vision problems with one of the participants.
Using common sense, people have to generally prove positive claims that aren't consistent with the general consensus, and prove negative claims that aren't consistent from the general consensus (eg. claiming that France is really twice as large as Asia would require proof, as would saying that France doesn't exist at all).
However, that's only using common sense, in philosophy/discussions, the burden of proof is always on the person making any claim, no matter how obviously true/ridiculous it is.
Depends on if you believe the universe to be infinite or not, and also for what.That wouldn't work, I could say that your equipment is faulty.
I could say "This box is blue", and you could prove it wrong by bringing over something a different colour and showing that the light they reflect is of the same wavelength. You have then proven that my box is not blue by proving it to be a different colour.
Negative proof is pretty much proving something that the claim cannot be true by proving something contradictory.
Or you could have, say, a ballpool. And you could say that one of the balls in there is smaller than the others. And I could prove you to be incorrect by measuring every ball and showing them to all have the same diameter.
That said, can anyone come up with a definition for positive/negative proofs? Because I don't think that they really exist as separate things.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 06:02:27 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 06:43:54 pm
So yeah. If you're arguing with someone using solipsist arguments and really piling on the requests for proof, you'll likely get nowhere since both of you have to agree on what assumptions to make before a real debate can start. Otherwise it's a circular argument, talking past each other.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 06:53:21 pm
Though it is kinda' interesting, sometimes, to see just how far back you can get. It can be a pretty useful analytic thought experiment, in certain cases.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 23, 2012, 07:33:26 pm
One important thing to note about this is that there are pretty much zero fullproof analogies. There's nothing quite like having zero knowledge or evidence whatsoever.I think there are plenty of analogies with zero knowledge or evidence whatsoever: invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, whatever. Any theory that's set up so that it can never be disproved. It's not possible to consider every single "theory that could be true but wouldn't affect the world in any way" since there's an infinite number of them, so really practically speaking you have to look for both evidence in favour of a theory and its relevance, or if that evidence isn't present yet then a way in which it could be tested in the future.
Post by: Bauglir on July 23, 2012, 07:38:56 pm
This is always my question to agnostics: why does god get a special evidence pedestal where you have to have disproving evidence to not believe it?There's no special pedestal. God gets this treatment because there are people who already believe. In advance, it's not about popularity, but it's about the status quo - no reason to waste energy changing it without a good reason. There are all sorts of reasons to argue against a lot of particular religions or deities, but I don't actually think the existence or nonexistence of the relevant spiritual entities is one of them. Religiously-motivated violence, for instance, is a great one (useful only for religions that encourage violence, whether explicitly or through the actions of religious leaders with non-religious motives). You can approach that argument from similar axioms to the person you're talking to, since you can ground the whole thing in observable fact - you cannot logically prove the nonexistence of God to somebody who takes the existence of God to be axiomatic, and let's be honest here, as an unobservable entity, God can only even make sense as a fundamental assumption.
I'm not going to go out of my way to prove that fairies and wizards don't exist (I consider this a waste of my time, just as I do with regards God) without a situation in which that believe is actually being problematic. And even then it's entirely possible that I'll consider it easier to approach the whole thing sideways and leave the fairies and wizards belief intact and just argue that they aren't a necessary explanation for whatever the mystery is.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 23, 2012, 07:54:04 pm
I think there are plenty of analogies with zero knowledge or evidence whatsoever:I'll go through them one by one.
Quote
invisible pink unicorn,Logical contradiction. No *empirical* evidence, but unless you're denying logic, there is reason to disbelieve it.
Quote
flying spaghetti monster,I'll give you this one, though I'm not well versed in this satirical religion.
Quote
celestial teapot,If you're talking about the teapot revolving around the sun one, there's plenty of inductive arguments against it. Most the universe is empty so claiming anything in any specific position is a statistical unlikelihood, teapots don't spontaneously appear, and even if one did it'd probably get annihilated rather quickly by solar winds. It doesn't work as an analogy.
Quote
Any theory that's set up so that it can never be disproved. It's not possible to consider every single "theory that could be true but wouldn't affect the world in any way" since there's an infinite number of them, so really practically speaking you have to look for both evidence in favour of a theory and its relevance, or if that evidence isn't present yet then a way in which it could be tested in the future.For those, yes there are infinite possibilities but there's no reason to believe or disbelieve any of them. For those, you could come to whatever conclusion you want and end up in the exact same spot no matter what you chose.
You can only concern yourself with things of actual consequence. I'm cool with that. But anything actually analogous to God and religions (that aren't full of holes) is equally unknowable and gets you nowhere in supporting or undermining those theories.
I can bring out Stampy, my invisible intangible elephant, to show that. Isn't he cute? Assuming he exists, of course. I can never tell.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 23, 2012, 08:49:51 pm
Logical contradiction. No *empirical* evidence, but unless you're denying logic, there is reason to disbelieve it.It's metaphorically pink. Stop thinking so narrowly :P.
If you're talking about the teapot revolving around the sun one, there's plenty of inductive arguments against it. Most the universe is empty so claiming anything in any specific position is a statistical unlikelihood, teapots don't spontaneously appear, and even if one did it'd probably get annihilated rather quickly by solar winds. It doesn't work as an analogy.I don't get what your first statement means at all (I'm not specifying a position or anything), but the fact that we haven't observed teapots sponteneously appearing doesn't mean that they don't. I certainly have not seen any evidence from you to show that they do not appear out of nowhere, and even if you produced some it could have been placed there by a celestial teapot maker. I never said what material the teapot was made out of - it could be made out of a material that can easily survive solar winds, or alternatively it could just be magic. You have not given me any evidence that magic to shield teapots from solar rays and space debris does not exist. Please provide evidence if you would like to make that claim.
And so on. You could defend any theory in this way, and to me that shows it is not a valid method of operation.
For those, yes there are infinite possibilities but there's no reason to believe or disbelieve any of them. For those, you could come to whatever conclusion you want and end up in the exact same spot no matter what you chose.Yep, there are no reasons to believe or disbelieve any of them. So why believe or disbelieve any of them over any of the others?
Regarding why God as a concept gets "special treatment"Sure, and that's why I don't go into churches and tell everyone they're wrong, or challenge friends who have Christian beliefs. But in an actual discussion, I sortof expect people to be able to justify their beliefs on some level, and will challenge them if I think there's a problem.
There's also a serious problem when people use their religion as an justification for, say, homophobia. If their interpretation is valid to some degree and you aren't allowed to challenge the basis of their beliefs then their position is bulletproof. Sometimes the axiom is what's causing the problem.
Post by: EveryZig on July 23, 2012, 11:20:24 pm
I never said what material the teapot was made out ofDark matter. ITS ALL TEAPOTS.
I'm not going to go out of my way to prove that fairies and wizards don't exist (I consider this a waste of my time, just as I do with regards God) without a situation in which that believe is actually being problematic.I would argue that beliefs such as religions* are inherently harmful independently of their actual content. Religions can convey very good ideas or very bad ideas, but the thing they have in common is how they convey them. That common trait is revelatory faith, which is completely unaccountable. No matter how contrary an idea is to evidence or logic, to a true believer it doesn't matter because they received it directly from their god**. Unreasonable and unshakable convictions are hardly unique to religion, but religion is different in that it asserts that you don't need a reason if you have faith.
Why is this a problem, some might ask, when religions can promote good ideas as easily as bad ideas?
This is a problem because religious belief itself contains much more than the actual content of the relevant holy books. A religion's scriptures are relevant, but in a person's actual beliefs they are heavily modified or even supplanted altogether by a number of unconscious factors such as culture and emotions.*** These factors effect everyone's beliefs about life, religious or otherwise, but religion adds one more layer of resistance to change. This effect allows any belief to potentially be considered beyond (or less susceptible to in milder cases) to questioning and reason, which tend to favor good ideas over bad ideas (if only because many bad ideas are illogical or rely on provably false premises).
My argument in short is that religion promotes ideas more or less indiscriminately, which makes it easier for bad ideas to stand against good ideas despite being bad ideas.
* In this post, by 'religions' I mean gnostic religions.
** Many or arguably most followers of religions rarely take things to such an extreme extent, but this effect is much more common in more subtle forms.
*** For example, numerous wealthy people such as bankers believe in and support Christianity, which explicitly condemns wealth and money-lending.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2012, 11:51:03 pm
Unreasonable and unshakable convictions are hardly unique to religion, but religion is different in that it asserts that you don't need a reason if you have faith.This. This in particular I have to point out. In every major religion that I'm aware of, there are major lines of theological tradition and thought within it that explicitly work counter to this point. Christian theology for a very long time was incredibly logic driven and very, very strongly emphasized logic and reasoning -- many of the big medieval Christian theologians were superlative logicians and spent incredible amounts of time and effort trying to reconcile faith and reason; some of them did a very impressive job of doing just that, and to this day there is a relatively powerful school of religious thought within Christianity that holds that not only is unreasoned faith undesirable, it's actually incapable of being true faith. I might not agree with their axioms, but there are, actually, incredibly compelling and strongly rational cases for theism. It doesn't, even remotely, do the actual work that's been done in the field of theology justice to deny that.
Similarly, both Islam and Judaism have major theologians within their umbrella that explicitly did not hold that faith was irreconcilable with reason. With other traditions, you have similar exemplars.
Now. That said, yes, there are threads of religious thought that work as you describe. I'd just like to make sure that the counter to that is not unknown, and unappreciated. Holding to the belief that true faith is supposed to be irrational unilaterally is simply an uneducated belief... if definitely understandable considering how much louder certain other groups are.
It... it's just, look. A lot of the major public voices related to religion aren't exactly the most rational, yes. This does not mean that all of them are. It does a number of incredibly brilliant and influential figures immense disservice to underestimate the achievements that have been accomplished within the field of theology.
Post by: Bauglir on July 24, 2012, 12:04:08 am
Sure, and that's why I don't go into churches and tell everyone they're wrong, or challenge friends who have Christian beliefs. But in an actual discussion, I sortof expect people to be able to justify their beliefs on some level, and will challenge them if I think there's a problem.The point I was making was about burden of proof, which is a bit different from "day-to-day life" vs "rational argument". If you're both making claims, the burden of proof is on both of you to support that claim in order to convince the other party. Anybody who says, "Prove your side first, I don't have to prove mine," loses. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "There's no proof of God, so I don't believe in God," when describing what you believe, but if you're trying to make an argument about what is the rational belief to hold, it holds about as much water as, "There's no proof of God's nonexistence, so I believe in God". You're both saying, "There's nothing to budge me from the status quo."
There's also a serious problem when people use their religion as an justification for, say, homophobia. If their interpretation is valid to some degree and you aren't allowed to challenge the basis of their beliefs then their position is bulletproof. Sometimes the axiom is what's causing the problem.
Also, I agree with your second paragraph. I would generally prefer to approach that problem by attempting to convince them that homophobia is wrong in God's eyes. Failing that, yes, attempting to demonstrate that their faith is causing real problems and they should modify or abandon it would be acceptable, and I explicitly said that it's okay if the belief itself is problematic. That's entirely unrelated to belief in God having special privileges in the realm of argument. As I said several pages back (easy to miss and/or forget), there are all sorts of reasons to argue against particular deities or religions, but they don't apply to the concept as a whole.
Post by: Hiiri on July 24, 2012, 12:29:11 am
I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itselfI don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
THERE! You're an atheist, get over it.
You quoted out of context.
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.
That is the quote with the other bits. I don't believe that he exists, or that he doesn't, because there is no solid evidence either way.
I did not. What you put on top of "I don't believe any god exists" is irrelevant. As long as you don't live by the assumption that a personal god is looking out for you, you're an atheist.
You can claim all sorts of things, but these claims have no bearing on your atheism. You can claim there absolutely are no gods, this has little to do with your atheism. You can be unsure whether or not there really are any gods, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're a socialist or a libertarian, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're a liberal or a conservative, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're blonde or brunette, this has nothing to do with your atheism.
You can claim there is a God, who loves you and follows you through your life, now you're no longer an atheist.
Post by: lemon10 on July 24, 2012, 12:53:09 am
Either A or B is true, but not both (I suppose they could be both untrue, like if you believed in the greek pantheon (since you said that you don't believe that he exists (aka using the singular and not plural), but that's rather unlikely).
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2012, 12:59:01 am
Post by: Bauglir on July 24, 2012, 12:59:23 am
And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 24, 2012, 01:03:55 am
And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.
Everyone heed this. If I weren't about to fall asleep I'd type something up myself.
Let's just say there's a difference between helping someone learn and grow with their beliefs, and telling them what they are regardless of how they feel about themselves.
Post by: lemon10 on July 24, 2012, 01:08:53 am
No, he was very careful not to say both, "I believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist".No, he said "I don't believe god exists" and "I don't don't believe god exists" , its slightly different from what he actually said, but its exactly the same meaning.
And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.
In English, double negatives are usually mutually exclusive, as they are in this case.
If I said "I believe I ate that pie on the desk", and also said "I don't believe I ate that pie on the desk", one of the statements is wrong, no matter which one I actually believe.
E: To make it more similar to what he said, its like saying "I don't think A is true", and "I don't not think A is true". One says that he thinks A is wrong, the other says that he doesn't think A is wrong, which basically means he either thinks its correct, or he has no opinion/knowledge of it.
This thread is getting worryingly semantic.Yeah. :-\
I think its because the past 10 pages have been about the definition of atheism and philosophical concepts where definition is very important.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 24, 2012, 02:45:05 am
This is distinct from strong, or positive, atheism, where one actively believes there is no such deity.
A rock or a baby or a perfectly reasoned agnostic is a weak atheist. Richard Dawkins is a strong atheist. Active disbelief is a subset of atheism, not a core tenet!
So, to reiterate, technically speaking, Supercharazad IS an atheist. However, because people associate atheism with people like Dawkins, they assume that all atheists are strong atheists. Which leads to hilarity when agnostics (such as Supercharazad) are described as atheist. Correct, but easy to misinterpret.
Also, apparently, my mind can spell atheism correctly, but misspells atheist as athiest :/
Post by: Graknorke on July 24, 2012, 03:59:33 am
Isn't that anti-theism then? The belief that there is no deity, rather than a lack of belief that there is one. Of course, you'd have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist as well, seeing as it would be hard to say that there aren't any gods, but you believe in one.
This is distinct from strong, or positive, atheism, where one actively believes there is no such deity.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 24, 2012, 04:21:50 am
The a- prefix in atheism basically means without, or lacking, as opposed (ironically) to anti-, which basically means against.
That said, anti-theists are a subset of strong atheists. They can't be misotheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism) according to wikipedia (TIL that the term is misotheist, not maltheist, for the "there is a god, but he's a prick, so screw him" viewpoint) or weak atheist, as by definition they think that the very act of believing that a god does exist is a bad thing.
Post by: Supercharazad on July 24, 2012, 05:51:07 am
There might be a god.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.
I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.
Here's an analogy:
I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.
I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either
When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.
Post by: Antioch on July 24, 2012, 06:01:54 am
I'll put the way I think this way:
There might be a god.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.
I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.
how can the non-existence of god even be proven in the case he does not exist?
Post by: Graknorke on July 24, 2012, 06:10:38 am
Here's an analogy:But in that analogy, while you can't get definite evidence, you can consider my intent. Well, firstly, it's quite improbable to have me have my hypothetical four aces anyway, not impossible, just not very likely. With intent, it would probably benefit me a lot more to be lying than to be telling the truth, seeing as, if I WERE telling the truth, it would either have you bet with a straight flush and win the bet without any fear of being wrong, or have you fold and cease betting when I would have otherwise had the best hand, which would decrease my winnings.
I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.
I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either
When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.
On the other hand, lying could have benefits if I had a better hand; in convincing you to make a higher bet on your hand, thinking it will win; or a lower hand by convincing you to fold and leave me with the best hand.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 06:12:17 am
I'll put the way I think this way:Alright, let's do it your way.
There might be a god.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.
I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.
Here's an analogy:
I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.
I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either
When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.
If you can see the deck, you can look for aces there. If the deck has no aces, and you have no aces, then it stands to reason through inference that I do in fact have all the aces.
Similarly, we cannot observe god (or so most theists would conveniently say), but we can observe the universe around us, and so far there has been no evidence of a god or its influence, and so we can reasonably infer that there isn't a god because if there was there would be something we could use to indirectly infer its presence.
The only way that a god could exist and not leave something from which we could infer its existence is if it had no contact with our reality, and if something has no contact with reality then it is for all intents and purposes nonexistent anyway.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 24, 2012, 06:12:33 am
-
Yup. You're a weak agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism) (almost text-book in fact), which is a subset of weak atheist.
The great thing about religion debates is that all the possible options have been hashed out and labelled a long time ago :P
Post by: Phmcw on July 24, 2012, 06:54:58 am
Quote
Is it your belief that there is a god out there, that is consistent with the definition of a god as set forth by the Christian, Abrahamic, or Islamic faiths? If not, explain why. If so, explain why.
Still too vague, they don't agree at all on the nature of god. All revealed religion have the weakness that they are regional thing, though, which make no sense at all, and for me is sufficient to dismiss them.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 08:09:24 am
I might not agree with their axioms, but there are, actually, incredibly compelling and strongly rational cases for theism. It doesn't, even remotely, do the actual work that's been done in the field of theology justice to deny that.Isn't this the part where you give an example?
The point I was making was about burden of proof, which is a bit different from "day-to-day life" vs "rational argument". If you're both making claims, the burden of proof is on both of you to support that claim in order to convince the other party. Anybody who says, "Prove your side first, I don't have to prove mine," loses. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "There's no proof of God, so I don't believe in God," when describing what you believe, but if you're trying to make an argument about what is the rational belief to hold, it holds about as much water as, "There's no proof of God's nonexistence, so I believe in God". You're both saying, "There's nothing to budge me from the status quo."I do try to demonstrate why not believing in god is the more consistent position - since there's no reason to favour a belief in god over any other unfalsifiable theory, it follows that you're giving god a special position for no real reason if you believe only in god and not everything else (I guess you could believe in everything, but a lot of those everythings would be mutually contradictory, again leaving you in a strange position). I'm not in any way saying I don't have to provide evidence for my side - it's just that my position isn't "I believe that no gods exist", so I don't have to support that point in particular. My position is "You shouldn't (meaning "you can't do it and maintain logical consistency") believe in a theory unless you have evidence for it (and there doesn't appear to be any valid evidence for theistic beliefs)".
Also, I agree with your second paragraph. I would generally prefer to approach that problem by attempting to convince them that homophobia is wrong in God's eyes. Failing that, yes, attempting to demonstrate that their faith is causing real problems and they should modify or abandon it would be acceptable, and I explicitly said that it's okay if the belief itself is problematic. That's entirely unrelated to belief in God having special privileges in the realm of argument. As I said several pages back (easy to miss and/or forget), there are all sorts of reasons to argue against particular deities or religions, but they don't apply to the concept as a whole.Attempting to convince them that homophobia is wrong in God's eyes relies on an initial assumption that holy books are ultimately against homophobia. And I don't see why this would necessarily be true, considering they were written in a time when homophobia was extremely widespread. To be honest, I can't see homophobic interpretations of the bible as any less valid than most other modern interpretations (they're certainly more harmful, but I can't see them as fitting the scripture any worse).
So you say it should only be challenged in cases where it's problematic - but here there's another issue, in that the person with problematic beliefs could turn around and say "Well why aren't you saying that other guy's beliefs are invalid? Surely the fact I believe that homosexuality should be illegal has no bearing on the validity of the basis of my belief." And I'd have no answer. If I grant one person a potentially problematic basis then I have no reason to deny another person's use of that exact same basis, even if I regard that person's beliefs as harmful. So that's a reason why I feel these beliefs should be challenged in settings like these, even if the whole massive status quo thing and the fact that a lot of people want to shut the debate out of public life means that it's hard to challenge them in wider society.
This thread is getting worryingly semantic.I'm trying to make non-semantic arguments, but I think a definition of the word "atheist" in the OP could really help there.
Also, apparently, my mind can spell atheism correctly, but misspells atheist as athiest :/I before E except after C has a lot to answer for.
Post by: Frumple on July 24, 2012, 09:22:04 am
Isn't this the part where you give an example?*lackadaisically gestures at the Enlightenment* God of the Gaps, Deism, etc.
The medieval period in general's just kinda' rife with it, too, due largely to that whole "only major source of literacy" thing... some of the major Arabic powers in and around that time period are incredibly notable for producing rational theists, as well. These people were entirely aware of the logical problems with a theistic axiom base and didn't just ignore or downplay the issues involved.
In more modern times, I'd... have to go find my old school notes, which is more effort than I'm going to put forward :P But yes, there's continuing effort in the modern era to marry reason and religion, and in ways considerably more genuine than is often appreciated -- by either the non-religious or the religious.
But, you can look toward guys like Spinoza, theists (albeit of a sort that many lay worshipers nowadays likely wouldn't recognize as such) who didn't just throw out rationality. That sort of tradition has most definitely extended into the modern age and is engaging in good faith (heh) with non-theist ideology. I just can't remember any of the more notable names, bleh.
Primary point I was trying to make, though, is that saying that true faith is necessarily irrational just isn't something that's accurate. Theology is considerably more diverse than that, and it's just not really an assumption that's fair to make, especially if you're trying to discuss the issue meaningfully.
Post by: EveryZig on July 24, 2012, 09:27:30 am
Christian theology for a very long time was incredibly logic driven and very, very strongly emphasized logic and reasoning -- many of the big medieval Christian theologians were superlative logicians and spent incredible amounts of time and effort trying to reconcile faith and reason; some of them did a very impressive job of doing just that, and to this day there is a relatively powerful school of religious thought within Christianity that holds that not only is unreasoned faith undesirable, it's actually incapable of being true faith. I might not agree with their axioms, but there are, actually, incredibly compelling and strongly rational cases for theism. It doesn't, even remotely, do the actual work that's been done in the field of theology justice to deny that.It is possible I am being unfair to theologians after looking at too many fundamentalists, but I still have some issues with this.
I oversimplified earlier about religion having no regard for reason at all, but even theology is about reconciling faith and reason, which is still based on the idea that faith is in itself a worthwhile thing. I have the same objections to reconciling faith and reason that you might have to 'reconciling' astrology and astronomy.
(As a side note, I too have not found much in the way of specific logical theologians. I search for them every once and a while, but the closest I have ever come to finding them is the Anthropic Principle, which basically consists of assigning physical laws probabilities in order to make a gap into which a god can fit.)
Post by: Cthulhu on July 24, 2012, 09:32:36 am
I wouldn't call deism rational either, at least not anymore. Belief in a non-interventionist impersonal god is about as rational as belief in Sagan's invisible dragon. It made sense in the enlightenment period, back before stuff like evolution and advanced cosmology had made atheism a tenable position for the thinking man, but now that we don't need an intelligence to invoke them I don't see why we should.
Post by: RedKing on July 24, 2012, 09:34:17 am
Post by: Frumple on July 24, 2012, 10:07:32 am
I wouldn't call deism rational either, at least not anymore. Belief in a non-interventionist impersonal god is about as rational as belief in Sagan's invisible dragon. It made sense in the enlightenment period, back before stuff like evolution and advanced cosmology had made atheism a tenable position for the thinking man, but now that we don't need an intelligence to invoke them I don't see why we should.Yeah, not cluttering up the metaphysics unnecessarily is my primary reason for not accepting a lot of theist arguments, myself. There's people that disagree that a maximally uncluttered metaphysics is a virtue, though, and from what I've seen where a person falls on that subject is more a matter of taste than justification.
M'not particularly interested in actually providing the arguments that are going around nowadays... I honestly don't remember any of the particulars, nor can I recall (/or am willing to expend the effort finding) enough to hunt them down again. Those were just examples thrown out to show that, y'know, it's not all just FAITH FAITH FAITH NO REASON or whathaveyou (which is overstating Zig's original statement, I do believe, but it gets the point across.). Yes, a lot of the older stuff's been kicked into the ground pretty hard and etc, and so forth, and so on. That doesn't mean we get to posit the assumption that, simply because an argument is faith (and/or religion) based, it's irrational. S'not paying th'better theologians their fair due, and the issue isn't quite that simple.
(As a side note, I too have not found much in the way of specific logical theologians. I search for them every once and a while, but the closest I have ever come to finding them is the Anthropic Principle, which basically consists of assigning physical laws probabilities in order to make a gap into which a god can fit.)Yeah, s'like I've been saying, I'm aware that they exist but don't remember exactly who they are... frankly, I'd have to make either a long distance phone call (am poor :-\) or a six hour road trip (in about a month and a half, when they come off vacation :P) to talk to a couple of my old professors to get some good suggestions. Theology isn't really my field, I've just brushed up against it enough to have a degree of respect for it, even if I by-and-large disagree with the conclusions it tends to come to (and basically don't remember a bloody thing about the actual arguments). It's never good to underestimate the enemy, so to speak :P
As for the faith thing, just remember to clarify religious faith with that, heh. Everything's ultimately faith (i.e. unjustifiable -- in the stronger sense -- belief) based at the bottom, etc. Faith isn't just a worthwhile thing, it's a necessary thing. Strong skepticism can't actually be beat without it, unfortunately, and thorough skepticism itself is basically a useless dead-end.
Post by: EveryZig on July 24, 2012, 10:24:37 am
It is probably unfair of me, but I keep getting the impression that (to mix some metaphors) logical theologians have an elusiveness that places them somewhere between the True Scotsman and the Loch Ness Monster.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 12:21:38 pm
*lackadaisically gestures at the Enlightenment* God of the Gaps, Deism, etc.Can you explain how either of them qualify as logically compelling arguments for theism? Because god of the gaps to me is just the old "if we can't explain something yet we'll just say god did it and apparently that's evidence" while deism is the one that relies on faith most of all since its god does nothing.
Primary point I was trying to make, though, is that saying that true faith is necessarily irrational just isn't something that's accurate. Theology is considerably more diverse than that, and it's just not really an assumption that's fair to make, especially if you're trying to discuss the issue meaningfully.So that's why I'd like you to provide me with a more specific counterexample, to show that it's not "FAITH FAITH FAITH NO REASON". You can't just reference arguments and expect me to take your word for it that they're good. I mean, I'm sure that theists can be otherwise logical and still hold their faith. I appreciate that before modern science the case for god would be stronger. I just haven't seen any actual logical arguments for why you should believe in god today... well, other than the creationist ones that rely on blatantly incorrect understandings of science or the data.
Post by: Bauglir on July 24, 2012, 02:14:21 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 24, 2012, 02:21:58 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 03:13:29 pm
If you already believe in God, why should you stop?Because there's no reason to believe it over any other theory with no evidence (at least, no reason that's been presented - please present one if you think one exists). You can't logically justify a position like that unless you decide to believe every other unfalsifiable theory, many of which are mutually exclusive. So the reason to stop is that the position is logically unjustifiable unless you can construct a reason to believe in god over all the other idea.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 24, 2012, 03:37:15 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on July 24, 2012, 03:46:07 pm
Then why should you start in the first place?
In my experience, because someone told them to, and devout faith took hold (which I am not saying is a bad thing, in all cases) before the ability to question what they had been told had developed (for whatever reason). Children don't invent God(s) - they are taught it/them as part of an education in morals or right behavior, which do form part of most faiths, but they most certainly do not have a monopoly on them.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 24, 2012, 04:08:29 pm
Then why should you start in the first place?
Conditioning. Like every religion ever.
Not too often an Atheist household raises a fanatic Bantu Muslim.
Post by: lemon10 on July 24, 2012, 04:12:58 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on July 24, 2012, 04:14:05 pm
Also; los Faith gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene) can [speculatively- with solid science involved] have a rather huge impact on people's susceptibility to faith-based reasoning.
Post by: lemon10 on July 24, 2012, 04:26:29 pm
Saying it comes from a outside source is rather irrelevant.
It is quite different from conditioning, because someone chooses with their full intellect to believe in it, rather then being raised to believe in it.
Post by: Glowcat on July 24, 2012, 05:15:27 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 05:58:38 pm
Post by: i2amroy on July 24, 2012, 06:35:08 pm
Most people who are religious are so because their parents told them to be at a young age. That really is it. Those early reinforcements tend to stick, and when they don't, it tends to cause an emotional crisis since you come to believe that your own parents deceived you at your most gullible, regardless of if that is actually true or not.There are a fair amount of converts at older ages in many religions too, those people who have the whole "I was dealing drugs and with a bad crowd and then somebody reached out their hand and god saved me", stories. Strangely from what I've seen those who convert later often tend to be much more religious then those who are born into a religion. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the majority of these people:
1)Make a conscious choice to become part of a religion. After all many people may question the religion they were born into, but those who decide to be in a religion are much more likely to be in it because they want to, not because that was how they were raised.
2)Their situation is many times worse before gaining religion. This creates a positive reinforcement for the idea that being in their chosen religion is a good thing and promotes obedience to the ways of that religion more.
Post by: Bauglir on July 24, 2012, 07:15:58 pm
Sure, there is a reason. You already believe it, which isn't the case with virtually all competing theories that lack evidence. What there's no reason to do is modify your belief structure without evidence that indicates it is wrong - as opposed to a complete lack of evidence one way or the other.If you already believe in God, why should you stop?Because there's no reason to believe it over any other theory with no evidence (at least, no reason that's been presented - please present one if you think one exists). You can't logically justify a position like that unless you decide to believe every other unfalsifiable theory, many of which are mutually exclusive. So the reason to stop is that the position is logically unjustifiable unless you can construct a reason to believe in god over all the other idea.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 24, 2012, 07:33:03 pm
Post by: palsch on July 24, 2012, 07:34:36 pm
Sure, there is a reason. You already believe it, which isn't the case with virtually all competing theories that lack evidence. What there's no reason to do is modify your belief structure without evidence that indicates it is wrong - as opposed to a complete lack of evidence one way or the other.There is a reason the most important principle of scepticism is to ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"
Applying scepticism other ideas - even just in the sense of demanding positive proof - without applying the same principle to your own beliefs is just arrogance and wilful ignorance. You should be able to make as strong a case for what you believe as you would demand from someone else to accept a similar ideas validity.
This is doubly true of when a belief informs the way you live your life and interact with others. If a set of actions are dictated by a belief then it's hard to examine those actions in an independent critical light. If you can't or won't examine that underlying belief then trying to change those actions (as with trying to reduce religious homophobia) is pretty hard going.
Post by: Grek on July 24, 2012, 07:39:50 pm
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the majority of these people:
1)Make a conscious choice to become part of a religion. After all many people may question the religion they were born into, but those who decide to be in a religion are much more likely to be in it because they want to, not because that was how they were raised.
2)Their situation is many times worse before gaining religion. This creates a positive reinforcement for the idea that being in their chosen religion is a good thing and promotes obedience to the ways of that religion more.
Alternative sociological explanation:
When someone is raised with a religion, they learn it from their parents who in turn learned it from their parents, back through the generations to the first convert in your family history. Each generation alters the religious message a little bit, like a game of telephone. Except, instead of making errors, they just omit the more extreme or complicated or, well, goofy-sounding bits of the religion that they don't think their kids can handle being told about without doing something socially inappropriate. As a result, more and more family mores saying things like, "It's OK to ignore the passages saying to [stone adulterers|shun nonbeleivers|not eat pork]; that's not what's really important." until the fires of fanaticism die down to a comfortably lukewarm tradition that just so happens to match the cultural zeitgeist of wherever it is the family lives.
When someone converts to a religion, this doesn't happen. They don't have the long tradition of family mores reassuring them that it's OK to ignore certain parts of the religion as unimportant or outdated. Generally speaking, them read the dogma and accept it at face value, thinking that if they try to ignore some of the less reasonable-sounding provisions, they're failing their new religion and then they'll be just as bad off spiritually as if they'd never converted in the first place. So they go all in with their faith, start stoning adulterers, preaching in the streets and telling more moderate beleivers that they're doing it wrong or that they're not being faithful enough.
Post by: EveryZig on July 24, 2012, 08:57:32 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 09:33:14 pm
See, I could be a way better malevolent god then the one we'd have under deism. Vote MetalSlimeHunt for Deity 14,500,000,000.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 24, 2012, 10:00:19 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 10:13:36 pm
*transforms Hanslanda's chairs and bed into life-sustaining hateful meshes of razor wire*
Post by: EveryZig on July 24, 2012, 10:34:23 pm
Deism is interesting because it leaves one with the impression that God is either extremely apathetic or an absolute dick,You forget the other options:
- God created the universe, but doesn't have any actual control over how it turns out (incompetent/powerless god)
- God acted for utterly incomprehensible or nonsensical reasons (lovecraftian god)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 24, 2012, 10:41:12 pm
Post by: Bauglir on July 24, 2012, 11:38:05 pm
So... you believe it because you already believe it, and you already believe it because you already believed it? I can't argue with circular logic I suppose.No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance). Nevertheless, why should you change beliefs that have been working out just fine and aren't actually causing any ethical or practical problems? Remember, I'm talking about a hypothetical religion which does not A) claim precedence over scientific observation and B) does not correlate with bigotry. Not about, for instance, Catholicism - I'm perfectly aware that most real examples of religion would require so much modification to fit this hypothetical description that they would be an entirely new sect.
There is a reason the most important principle of scepticism is to ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"Not everyone is a skeptic, and I don't agree that everyone should be. I'm not arguing about skepticism, however - or, if I am, it's that one should be more skeptical of the new than the status quo. If you'll note, science works like this in practice - variation from expectations attracts much greater attention (and, possibly, ridicule) than adherence to the status quo, and I don't think this is just a flaw in the ability of humans to apply rationality rationally. Changing a belief demands a higher degree of evidence than maintaining a belief, regardless of the circumstances under which that belief is arrived at in the first place.
Applying scepticism other ideas - even just in the sense of demanding positive proof - without applying the same principle to your own beliefs is just arrogance and wilful ignorance. You should be able to make as strong a case for what you believe as you would demand from someone else to accept a similar ideas validity.
This is doubly true of when a belief informs the way you live your life and interact with others. If a set of actions are dictated by a belief then it's hard to examine those actions in an independent critical light. If you can't or won't examine that underlying belief then trying to change those actions (as with trying to reduce religious homophobia) is pretty hard going.
For the last time, I've said repeatedly that when a belief is causing moral or practical problems, it's perfectly reasonable to challenge it because you have a reason against it. This is not the case when people argue against the rationality of the concept of deities or other supernatural entities in principle, which all boil down to a lack of reasons to believe, rather than a reason to lack belief. Occam's Razor is a useful philosophical tool, not an all-encompassing natural law.
Post by: palsch on July 25, 2012, 02:55:58 am
Not everyone is a skeptic, and I don't agree that everyone should be. I'm not arguing about skepticism, however - or, if I am, it's that one should be more skeptical of the new than the status quo. If you'll note, science works like this in practice - variation from expectations attracts much greater attention (and, possibly, ridicule) than adherence to the status quo, and I don't think this is just a flaw in the ability of humans to apply rationality rationally. Changing a belief demands a higher degree of evidence than maintaining a belief, regardless of the circumstances under which that belief is arrived at in the first place.Actually science, in principle and largely in practice, works as I described.
You can ask why a current belief is held as valid in science and come up with an answer every time. That forms the minimum hurdle a new idea has to overcome to be accepted. The problems come when people outside fail or refuse to actually look at the original answer, the original reasons the status quo is the status quo.
And yes, there have been historical cases where the answers haven't been good, although relatively few in the last fifty years or so.
As for people being sceptical, I haven't ever seen an actual case against scepticism other than people not liking others rejecting their unsupported ideas (even as they maintain the right to reject other's ideas on the same grounds).
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2012, 04:50:03 am
Or, to put it another way, skepticism requires that you are skeptical of the unsupported axioms of skepticism, and most skeptics just... aren't. I mean, I can't blame them, because some of those axioms are stuff like existence and crap, but it's still true of the project of skepticism. Basically, it beats itself, which is somewhat of an issue. Most (quite easily arguably all) people just accept somewhat inconsistently applied skeptical methodology and go on with whatever they're doing.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 25, 2012, 04:56:12 am
- God acted for utterly incomprehensible or nonsensical reasons (lovecraftian god)Oh, I didn't think of it earlier, but in the Mythos the universe was created by Azathoth, the Daemon Sultan, the Nuclear Chaos, the Blind Idiot God. Azathoth is pretty much mindless but is the most powerful entity in existence, and its creation of the universe was an accident that it probably doesn't have any opinion on, but if it does it would be regret.
Post by: palsch on July 25, 2012, 06:32:33 am
Or, to put it another way, skepticism requires that you are skeptical of the unsupported axioms of skepticism, and most skeptics just... aren't. I mean, I can't blame them, because some of those axioms are stuff like existence and crap, but it's still true of the project of skepticism. Basically, it beats itself, which is somewhat of an issue. Most (quite easily arguably all) people just accept somewhat inconsistently applied skeptical methodology and go on with whatever they're doing.The thing is, those axioms don't have to be held as tenants of faith to be a functioning sceptic. I'm not sure they even count as axioms.
Let's say that I want to predict something using science. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient understanding to form a definitive model of the system. So I construct a speculative model, based on my current limited understanding of the situation, and make predictions based on that. I then act on those predictions.
Nothing there is inconsistent with scepticism. It doesn't demand certainty and doesn't guarantee accuracy. You can make sceptical assessments based on limited information or assumptions. It does demand that always be willing to acknowledge those assumptions and challenge them to the extent you are able. A lot of the time the defences may not be entirely rigorous (the primary defence of inductive reasoning is using inductive reasoning itself yet arguably all science is inductive at root) but they tend to hold up well on a human, practical level.
I'd also just like to note I'm talking about what I'd call lifestyle or rational scepticism - the application of critical rationalism and/or empiricism to day-to-day life and personal beliefs - and most others would call scientific scepticism (which I see that as a more narrow subset of general sceptical thought) rather than philosophical scepticism, which broadly challenges the validity of knowledge, either within a field or as an entirety. The two are far from incompatible in practice (at least with subsets of philosophical scepticism that require you are agnostic towards knowledge, only accepting any truth as a weighted possibility while rejecting the possibility of certainty; a position I actually think can be a useful way to look at the world) but you can be sceptical on a practical level while accepting other philosophies of knowledge. Michael Shermer (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html) does a good job of separating the two ideas, although most of that essay is targeted at scepticism in practice rather than a philosophical justification.
And I probably need to add the American spelling to my dictionary if I'm going to keep writing about this. I know a few sceptic groups that always identify as skeptics even here in the UK, but right now can't remember which spelling is used for which concepts and groups...
Post by: Frumple on July 25, 2012, 07:03:17 am
I would kinda' good-naturedly poke at the "tend to hold up well on a human, practical level," though. Agree with what you're getting at entirely (and it was the majority of my point!), but that kind of reasoning is basically an appeal to popularity more than justification. Putting it in line with something more faith based, a lot of the softer non-skeptical stuff holds up pretty well under the same level of consideration :P Skepticism's got an overall better track record in most cases, o'course, but that's more or less saying that it works because when we use it, it works, which is a leeetle circular, heh. The good kind of circular, though.
Post by: palsch on July 25, 2012, 08:23:42 am
Yeah, that was the divide I was talking about, more or less. Day-to-day skepticism is pretty viable (and an incredible analytic tool, regardless), but I'd sorta' parallel it to (beneficial) lay worship. The skeptical equivalent of fundamentalism being th'one you identified as the harder philosophical skepticism.I don't agree with either side of that analogy.
Comparing philosophical scepticism to fundamentalism doesn't do either side much credit. There are branches within scepticism that do closely match fundamentalism, but they aren't comparable catagories.
Philosophical scepticism would be more akin to abstract theology. It is a doctrine for exploring the territory (knowledge for scepticism, the varied concepts of God and the divine for theology), not for dictating how you live. It may inform beliefs closer to real life and change your perspective on other ideas, but it doesn't in itself tell you much of anything about how you should act. Even people who are strongly philosophical sceptics are unlikely to live their lives by it's teachings or even find such teachings that inform their lives.
The comparison of rational scepticism to lay worship is stronger, in the sense that they directly inform your day-to-day life, but the fundamental difference is that scepticism can and should be turned on itself. While lay religion may come with such a doctrine, it is only occasional and far from a guaranteed part of religion.
I wouldn't mention that, but the idea that scepticism is doctrinal in the same manner as much religion comes up a lot and is a really nasty false equivalence. It's reflex to push back hard.
Quote
Further away you get from that kind of hardcore request for justification of knowledge claims, th'more you're basically capitulating to usability, as I see it.Thing is, I don't see that at all. Mostly because I don't think that hardcore requests for justification are what it's about.
Again, scepticism doesn't demand that you have certainty before accepting a belief. Hell, the more hardcore versions dictate that you can never have certainty, and frankly they have a strong point there. It's more about ensuring that beliefs are reasonable and being willing to challenge them.
It's possible to hold a belief while acknowledging it's possible it is wrong. This is practically a requirement for scepticism. It's why the fundamental question isn't, "why is this true," it's, "why do I believe what I believe?" Understanding your reasons for belief helps reveal how reliable that belief is, as well as what other assumptions it rests on.
In this sense anything less than strict philosophical rigour isn't a concession to usability but simply an acceptance of a different level of certainty. An idea that has a complete and valid philosophical/logical chain of reasoning might be as certain as the branch of logic or philosophy the chain is built in. A belief that is based on something some guy said in the pub is as certain as your trust in the guy and your immediate assessment of that information given prior knowledge. It doesn't require you test it before thinking it's true, but does mean you try to understand the reason you believe it to be true and maybe consider it needs more testing or evidence before you take any actions based on it.
When I spoke of human, practical level, this is what I meant. It gives us a level of certainty that people are able to act on. The thing is, this isn't just an appeal to popularity. It's also a reasonably objective statement of that level of certainty (at least from where I'm sitting). We can trust inductive reasoning strongly enough to commit decades of work to building inductive chains of logic, solely on the entirely inductive reasoning that such arbitray reasoning (AKA, science) happens to give good results (eg, technology).
Of course, some stuff is lost to practicality in practice. It's not like certainty levels are quantified or formal, and usually the language of certainty is entirely reasonable to use. But then usually the discussions between sceptics and others take place in territory where there such language is well justified, especially from a sociological point of view. If you are having an argument over the validity of some harmful quack medical practice then you probably want to make as definitive a statement as you can, even if that's a (slightly) exaggerated position from a less definitive position held based on statistical evidence and Bayesian inference.
As an example, I'd say that I disbelieve the Christian God. Not that I don't believe, but actively disbelieve. I base this on my reading of the logical arguments for and against such a deity. Now, none of these are truly definitive arguments. There is no golden bullet that shows that (at least subsets of even that narrow definition of) God doesn't exist. There is the possibility of being wrong. But my reading of the arguments gives me strong enough reason for me to hold that positive belief and act as though it were definite.
Post by: Reudh on July 25, 2012, 08:32:16 am
There isn't a god.
If he/she/it appears and I have incontrivertable proof that he/she/it exists and isn't just a figment of my deranged mind, then I'd gladly pay him/her/it attention.
Till then though, I remain atheist.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 25, 2012, 08:33:53 am
No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance).If you know your beliefs don't make sense but you aren't prepared to change them then there's nothing more I can do. The discussion ends if one side refuses to concede or defend their own position at all.
Nevertheless, why should you change beliefs that have been working out just fine and aren't actually causing any ethical or practical problems? Remember, I'm talking about a hypothetical religion which does not A) claim precedence over scientific observation and B) does not correlate with bigotry. Not about, for instance, Catholicism - I'm perfectly aware that most real examples of religion would require so much modification to fit this hypothetical description that they would be an entirely new sect.I'll still have a go at this question, although I think the validity of the basis of your belief is irrelevant to the consequences.
My problem is that it provides cover for those with the bigoted or anti-scientific beliefs. They can claim that, well, there are many thousands of other people who share this evidenceless basis with us, why are you singling us out just because we're anti-homosexuality? And I don't think there's actually a valid answer to that question. If there were fewer people holding religious beliefs then the bigots and stuff would be a lot more isolated, and find it harder to maintain the legitimacy that being part of a huge group lends them.
Post by: Bauglir on July 25, 2012, 10:49:00 am
Actually science, in principle and largely in practice, works as I described.This actually doesn't disagree with what I'm arguing. The status quo always exists for a reason. It might not be a very good one; I agree "I was raised to believe this" isn't a particularly sound logical basis for anything, but is still a basis. There's a hurdle, even if a very small one, that must be overcome in order to justify changing that belief.
You can ask why a current belief is held as valid in science and come up with an answer every time. That forms the minimum hurdle a new idea has to overcome to be accepted. The problems come when people outside fail or refuse to actually look at the original answer, the original reasons the status quo is the status quo.
I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance).If you know your beliefs don't make sense but you aren't prepared to change them then there's nothing more I can do. The discussion ends if one side refuses to concede or defend their own position at all.
Quote
I'll still have a go at this question, although I think the validity of the basis of your belief is irrelevant to the consequences.I'm singling them out because they're anti-homosexuality. If you can't come up with an argument against persecuting people on the basis of sexual orientation that isn't "You don't have a religious directive to oppose homosexuality", I think you need to reexamine your own position and decide why you hold that belief. Criticize bigots for their bigotry, not for a belief that is, at best, tangentially related.
My problem is that it provides cover for those with the bigoted or anti-scientific beliefs. They can claim that, well, there are many thousands of other people who share this evidenceless basis with us, why are you singling us out just because we're anti-homosexuality? And I don't think there's actually a valid answer to that question. If there were fewer people holding religious beliefs then the bigots and stuff would be a lot more isolated, and find it harder to maintain the legitimacy that being part of a huge group lends them.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 25, 2012, 12:54:21 pm
I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.I meant as in the reason for holding your beliefs making no sense. I maintain that if someone acknowledges they're holding their belief just because they're already holding their belief and doesn't do anything about it then they are not actually participating in a discussion.
I'm singling them out because they're anti-homosexuality. If you can't come up with an argument against persecuting people on the basis of sexual orientation that isn't "You don't have a religious directive to oppose homosexuality", I think you need to reexamine your own position and decide why you hold that belief. Criticize bigots for their bigotry, not for a belief that is, at best, tangentially related.That's not what I meant at all. I can come up with plenty of reasons why bigotry causes harm (and these could well be necessary if the person brings up other arguments in favour of their position), but they're all completely useless against someone who believes that a holy book is true, that the holy book defines what is "good" and that the holy book supports bigotry - you'd just be talking past them rather than actually engaging their argument. In order to attack their position I'd need to either show that their holy book is not in favour of bigotry, which isn't necessarily true considering most of them were written in a time when bigotry was the norm, or I'd need to attack their basis for believing in the first place.
And attacking the basis is difficult when that exact basis is so normalised and defended in wider society. So I believe that'd qualify as a reason why someone might want to break out of the circular "I believe because I believe" - to help change the atmosphere so that bigots can be better challenged for their views.
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "tangentially related". Surely the reason why you believe something (or even the thing you use to justify something) is directly related.
Post by: i2amroy on July 25, 2012, 02:14:42 pm
I think that the main reason why people hold a religion rather then switching to atheism is not their belief in this deity or that one, but rather their agreement with the lifestyle that is handed down by the religion. So while there is no logical reason why one should hold onto their beliefs in a deity or a particular religion, by remaining part of any given religion a person can be part of a group of people that hold the same world-view as them. So it's not the fact that they stay christians or whatever because ether necessarily believe in their associated god, it's because by remaining a part of that group they are guaranteed to be in a group of people that try to follow their given lifestyle (of helping others for example).I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.I meant as in the reason for holding your beliefs making no sense. I maintain that if someone acknowledges they're holding their belief just because they're already holding their belief and doesn't do anything about it then they are not actually participating in a discussion.
Even looking at religious texts, (take the bible for example because I'm not as familiar with the others, a little hard to get a copy of the Quran here, and a lot of the Judaic stuff you have to be a member before you're even allowed to look at) the majority of the messages aren't "believe in me or else", they are instead rules or lessons to live by like "don't murder" and "don't steal". Even the more fanatical messages tend to go "believe in me so your sins will be forgiven" or "only those who believe in me can be forgiven (of their sins)". The sins (or breaking of the rules of a given religion) are the focus of the message, not the belief itself.
Therefore it's not that people are holding onto a religion because they believe in the same deity, it's rather that by doing so they guarantee that they are part of a group with the same definition of "sin" (thus ensuring that they don't end up with a group that thinks murder isn't a "sin" for example), and by extension, similar morality and views of good and evil as they do. In fact that is probably the reason why there aren't more converts to atheism then there are now. While religions often have a bevy of rules like "don't kill" or "don't drink alcohol", atheism has defined itself solely as "those who do not believe in a god" and has no accompanying rules or regulations. Which would you rather join, a group of people that you know are all good (or at least trying to be) or a group of people that could just as easily be rapists as they could be saints? I don't know about you, but I'll take the group that is all good almost every time.
Post by: Graknorke on July 25, 2012, 03:06:45 pm
The moral lessons don't even apply too well, because in many places God actively promotes killing of nonbelievers, then kidnapping and raping their women. Moses and the slaves presumably took food with them, because they didn't all starve to death. That would be breaking the work contract and so stealing. And then when God isn't actively telling people to fight against each other, he's sitting back and letting them do it, but then also intervening some of the time.
And those are only the more popular bits. I think that in one part of the bible it encourages slavery as being the right thing, then lays out rules on prices costs, how long a slave should be kept for etc. But I don't remember it too good.
Long story short; the Bible actually teaches a lot of lessons that aren't what people say it's about.
Post by: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 04:08:19 pm
...a group of people that could just as easily be rapists as they could be saints?Maaaybe not the best example. (Not going to name names, but I am not talking about an athletic program here...)
Still, I agree with your general point that religion has established itself as a/the source morality, and that this is is a large part of what keeps religion afloat.
I would argue that religion isn't actually much of a source of morality for a number of reasons, but that has no impact on the effects of the general public thinking it is.
Post by: lemon10 on July 25, 2012, 04:31:04 pm
That means that if the Christian god really exists, and he is truly omniscient, then our universe would be just one in an infinite amount of universes, all existing in his head (I also think that the differentiation between real and simulated is essentially meaningless, especially when time and computational resources don't exist in the simulating area).
Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 25, 2012, 04:37:20 pm
Post by: i2amroy on July 25, 2012, 04:43:57 pm
Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).Of course that's the point when lots of people start to throw around terms like "predestination" or "free will". :P
Post by: lemon10 on July 25, 2012, 04:53:38 pm
Spoiler: KXCD comic to reinforce my point (click to show/hide)
A simulation is a system. It doesn't matter where it is, or what its made up of, it doesn't matter if its on a computer (or as in the comic, made out of rocks).
Or, in this case, entirely mental.
Imagine that a simulation exists.
A omniscient being would know every single part of that simulation, every frame from start to finish, all existing at once within its head.
And not only that simulation, every single possible simulation as well.
Free will makes no sense with a omniscient god. Any action you would choose would already be known and already determined. You can choose to do something as much as a computer program can choose to print out "Hello World" when its run, humans are just a few orders of magnitude harder to predict.Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).Of course that's the point when lots of people start to throw around terms like "predestination" or "free will". :P
EDIT: I might not be saying everything perfectly, because its a bit hard to wrap my head around the exact mechanics, and even harder to explain it properly, but I think what I am saying is fundamentally sound.
Post by: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 05:36:28 pm
(Of course, you could say the future is only partly determined and that being all-knowing only encompasses knowledge of current things and the best predictions, in which case you are only left with the problem of a mind containing multiple complete copies of itself.)
(Technically omniescent just means all-seeing.)
Post by: Bauglir on July 25, 2012, 07:31:06 pm
Post by: Graknorke on July 25, 2012, 07:49:21 pm
Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.Because there was no possibility of you not choosing it. It's like those things people like Derren Brown where they get people to choose cards at random from a layout, but they are laid out in such a way that most people will be drawn to a certain collection.
The Seance (http://youtu.be/dCfYwVVPMcg) one does it with photographs. 49:45 ish. Basically, people thing they're choosing what they do, but it doesn't really matter. 17:20 or so for the actual card thing. Viewer instructions were obviously rigged, but for the actual participants it was entirely based on the layout of the cards that made them choose the same thing Darren wanted them to choose.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 25, 2012, 10:16:41 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 25, 2012, 10:52:44 pm
On the topic of free will: If you include enough things, the system in which you exist is always deterministic. Even assuming souls existed, then the system consisting of the universe and the souls would be deterministic. If you also believe in quantum indeterminism, then the system consisting of the universe, the souls, and the universe's RNG would be deterministic.
How? If the universe is maybe up of quantumly probabilistic things, then the sum is likewise probabilistic.
Yes, massive things like the universe are generally going to look pretty similar, but quantum probabilistic effects could conceivably have a pretty huge effect in human terms; consider radioactive decay -> interacts with DNA -> mutation or cancer, for example.
That said, yeah, that doesn't mean conscious free will exists; I ultimately believe that the way our brains work is a determinstic result of our initial inputs, but that those inputs can be set probabilistically. So, the universe isn't fixed, but once it's decision are made, we will act on them in a reproducible way.
So, anyway, let's say we have a potential for *quantum* free will. Now, as a thought experiment, how is this compatible with omniscience?
One option is an omniscient being could see all alternate paths, branching constantly, possibly (:p) weighted by the probability. Still wouldn't be able to change it's path (at least, not if it's a rational being), but it could see how unlikely it was.
Post by: EveryZig on July 25, 2012, 11:04:36 pm
Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.I was talking in the context of a deity who knows a set future, which would mean that their future choices will remain unchanged by their knowledge of the complete consequences of their every decision. Once the deity considers anything they wish to change about the future, the only thing that can stop them from doing so is a lack of free will.
What I had not considered in my previous post (which is odd because I have speculated about this subject a lot previously) is the possibility that the deity doesn't ever want to change the future, through every action of theirs already being optimized for their purposes. (Basically, they will have the knowledge to have effectively save-scummed their entire life.)
As such a scenario is implausible outside of speculations, I think it is fairly safe to say that a system can not both be deterministic and have its outcome known by people inside the system.
Post by: lemon10 on July 25, 2012, 11:14:07 pm
On the topic of free will: If you include enough things, the system in which you exist is always deterministic. Even assuming souls existed, then the system consisting of the universe and the souls would be deterministic. If you also believe in quantum indeterminism, then the system consisting of the universe, the souls, and the universe's RNG would be deterministic. Simple as that. So there is no free will, no matter the reality, and the only thing that matters is essentially that you are conscious, and that's good enough for me.Personally, I don't believe in true randomness (and anything but perfectly random isn't random at all), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, unless you can come up with some logic or evidence, we can't just say it doesn't exist.
Why do you not have free will if choosing to do something means you always were going to choose that? Surely you still chose it.According to some dictionaries:
Quote
Wiktionary: Philosophy, The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.Now according to every dictionary that I checked, if god knows what you are going to do, or if physical circumstances perfectly control it, then you have no free will.
Dictionary.com: Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Merriam Webster: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Yes, you still make a choice, just like a rock makes a choice to get picked up when you pick it up, or a electron makes a choice to orbit around an
Want to boggle your mind even further? In order to actually be all knowing (rather than just described as such), a being must first exist. If a being is all knowing, then they know about everything about everything that exists. Including itself. So an all-knowing god would itself have no free will.(Nope, the commonly accepted definition is all knowing, all-seeing is acceptable, but all knowing is the primary one).
(Of course, you could say the future is only partly determined and that being all-knowing only encompasses knowledge of current things and the best predictions, in which case you are only left with the problem of a mind containing multiple complete copies of itself.)
(Technically omniescent just means all-seeing.)
Yeah, a omniscient being would have no free will, it would know everything that would happen, well, it would simply wouldn't be under any illusion that it had any free will at least.
Actually, if it knew everything about itself perfectly (including exactly how it worked), wouldn't that mean that there is a recursive and infinite set of omniscent beings?
EDIT: missed the last two replies in my post, because I wanted to have mine down before I got further behind.
Post by: Grek on July 26, 2012, 03:07:34 am
How? If the universe is maybe up of quantumly probabilistic things, then the sum is likewise probabilistic.
Depends on which interpretation you use. If you're using one of the many-worlds variants, where there are multiple worlds and you find yourself in a world with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the sum across all of the many worlds is deterministic. It's deterministic in a way where everything that can happen, quantumly speaking, does happen, but that's still determinism - stuff is just happening where you can't see it, giving the superficial appearance of nondeterminism. On the other hand, if you're a goober that prefers collapse postulates, where the wave fuction collapses into a single world, selecting between 'possible' worlds with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the single universe that exists + the RNG for the universe's "which way does the waveform collapse" function (which may just be a string of numbers that cannot be discovered from within the universe), then that is also deterministic, since if you had both, you could write a deterministic Turing machine to perfectly simulate the universe.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 26, 2012, 04:44:03 am
Depends on which interpretation you use. If you're using one of the many-worlds variants, where there are multiple worlds and you find yourself in a world with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the sum across all of the many worlds is deterministic. It's deterministic in a way where everything that can happen, quantumly speaking, does happen, but that's still determinism - stuff is just happening where you can't see it, giving the superficial appearance of nondeterminism. On the other hand, if you're a goober that prefers collapse postulates, where the wave fuction collapses into a single world, selecting between 'possible' worlds with probablity equal to the squared modulus of the amplitude, then the single universe that exists + the RNG for the universe's "which way does the waveform collapse" function (which may just be a string of numbers that cannot be discovered from within the universe), then that is also deterministic, since if you had both, you could write a deterministic Turing machine to perfectly simulate the universe.
That's just it though; there isn't a hidden variable for some universal RNG!
Spoiler: Spoilered for increasingly off-topic (click to show/hide)
Post by: Graknorke on July 26, 2012, 05:00:31 am
That's just it though; there isn't a hidden variable for some universal RNG!
The interactions themselves are inherently undeterminable. To reiterate; according to our best understanding of quantum physics, the world does not operate like Dwarf Fortress, where you plug a seed into some black box and get the same result everytime (well, macro scale it almost does, but not on the quantum scale).
Well, those understandings aren't really based on anything. They're pretty much just guesses that could be right. There would be no way to actually know without inventing time travel and watching the same experiment over and over again. Really most of the understandings of quantum physics are just plausible explanations that would result in the observations we see.
But that's the sort of thing that can easily end up with big horses in the sky pulling the sun along in a chariot.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 26, 2012, 05:15:01 am
Post by: Grek on July 26, 2012, 04:08:38 pm
Spoiler: Quantum Physics (click to show/hide)
The key thing to keep in mind here, and this IS actually on topic for the religion thread, is that that The Map Is Not The Territory and, while your map (ie. your understanding of reality) can be uncertain and have probabilities in it, the actual territory (ie. reality itself) cannot be. Reality is exact, unambigious, non-fuzzy and, well, real.
Post by: Glowcat on July 26, 2012, 05:27:04 pm
1I personally dislike Many-worlds theory; we're talking the endless creation of new universes from a prior one here, but without a corresponding input of energy. Since thermodynamics is pretty well one of the most fundamental laws of phsics, that's just painful.
I wasn't aware that the multiverse was proven to be a closed system.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 26, 2012, 07:09:21 pm
1I personally dislike Many-worlds theory; we're talking the endless creation of new universes from a prior one here, but without a corresponding input of energy. Since thermodynamics is pretty well one of the most fundamental laws of phsics, that's just painful.
I wasn't aware that the multiverse was proven to be a closed system.
Like I said, it's my opinion. Doesn't mean it's true, but it goes against my intuition, and since there is no mathematical way to verify any metaphysical theory, intuition is all I've got.
I'd say that you're not quite groking what the many-worlds theories are saying. According to many-worlds, here's what actually happens:Spoiler: Quantum Physics (click to show/hide)
The key thing to keep in mind here, and this IS actually on topic for the religion thread, is that that The Map Is Not The Territory and, while your map (ie. your understanding of reality) can be uncertain and have probabilities in it, the actual territory (ie. reality itself) cannot be. Reality is exact, unambigious, non-fuzzy and, well, real.
Argghlebargle. Alright, fine, you win on the Many-Worlds angle. ::) While there are arguments against it, my understanding stops at Quantum 301, and any attempt on my part to use said arguments would just mangle someone else's theory.
If it's true (of which I have my aforementioned doubts), then yes, it appears to be a valid solution to having a deterministic multiverse. On point 8 though; perspective is a funny thing. I must admit I find the idea of collapsing waveforms simpler (hence more "Occumian") than the idea of many worlds theory. All new existences constantly appearing? That doesn't seem simple.
Post by: Grek on July 26, 2012, 08:07:09 pm
Incidentally, I heartily recomend LessWrong's "An Intuitive Explanation of Solomonoff Induction (http://lesswrong.com/lw/dhg/an_intuitive_explanation_of_solomonoff_induction/)" to everyone in the thread with time enough to browse through it. Solomonoff Induction (which uses kolmogorov complexity as it's metric for simplicity) is basically the industry standard for applying Occam's Razor, so understanding how that works is pretty vital to making a good argument for/rebuttal against dismissing theology based on Occam.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 26, 2012, 09:42:50 pm
Bias toward how one thinks the universe should be, rather than how it is.
Basically drawing a conclusion with insufficient evidence, or skewing evidence toward what a researcher thinks the results should be rather than what they really show. In scientific circles this is a no-no. But in philosophy, it's used all the time: It's the biggest argument against solipsism for example. If I'm the only one that exists, you all are just NPCs, and I have no more moral obligation toward you than I do pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. But I reject that notion because... well no real further reason than "it'd be silly." I have no less logical reason to believe it than I do empiricism, so I'm picking a conclusion based on how I want to the universe to be, rather than evidence as to how it actually is.
Since this is the religion/theology thread, this obviously applied when picking religions theories. Anyone who comes to an unfalsifiable conclusion is just practicing wishful thinking. Well, "wishful" thinking might be the wrong word, but rather just choosing based on gut feeling, which could have an "undesirable" conclusion (such as atheism).
So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 26, 2012, 09:53:50 pm
Since this is the religion/theology thread, this obviously applied when picking religions theories. Anyone who comes to an unfalsifiable conclusion is just practicing wishful thinking. Well, "wishful" thinking might be the wrong word, but rather just choosing based on gut feeling, which could have an "undesirable" conclusion (such as atheism).What do you mean by this? I agree with you that coming to believe in an unfalsifiable theory tends to be a result of wishful thinking, but your next sentence is confusing.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on July 27, 2012, 07:22:31 pm
So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.
Belief is not inherently bad, but most religions have certain rules (e.g. reject technology, restrict social behaviour, force your beliefs on your children, dislike unbelievers) that are simply counterproductive.
Post by: i2amroy on July 27, 2012, 07:33:18 pm
Not to be antagonistic one way or the other, but I believe that this comic sums up that idea the best.So I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance right now about the concept of belief. Is it inherently bad, as it means we think the universe is how we want it to be rather than basing opinions solely on what we have evidence for? Is it good, as coming to a conclusion ends the useless cycle of unanswerable questions? Or is it just neutral? I dunno.Belief is not inherently bad, but most religions have certain rules (e.g. reject technology, restrict social behaviour, force your beliefs on your children, dislike unbelievers) that are simply counterproductive.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Personally I believe that belief can be a wonderful thing, and even religion as a whole, working as a way to teach the younger generations how they should live their lives and then giving them something to cling to in times of trouble. The problem lies in, as mentioned, when "bad" or counterproductive behaviors are integrated into what could otherwise help society as a whole.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 08:48:26 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 27, 2012, 09:07:15 pm
Siddhartha explicitly stated to question what he proposed, iirc, and that his conclusions could be reached via reasoning. S'definitely not how all of the organizations have ended up, though, sure.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 27, 2012, 09:10:43 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 27, 2012, 09:33:59 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on July 28, 2012, 12:19:54 am
If you're saying they're not really the same religion if they change... that's a pretty wacky assertion. Do sports teams become fundamentally and completely different when they change players? Are scientists of 500 years ago fundamentally and completely different from scientists of today since they believed wacky stuff like alchemy?
Change != separation.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 28, 2012, 12:23:09 am
Interestingly though, most forms humanism require criticism and question of its tenets.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 28, 2012, 12:24:45 am
Um, no? Religions can evolve, you know. They're not static things.Religion Splinters more then it changes. And religion generally only changes due to mass societal pressure and not through internal refutation of its tenets.
If you're saying they're not really the same religion if they change... that's a pretty wacky assertion. Do sports teams become fundamentally and completely different when they change players? Are scientists of 500 years ago fundamentally and completely different from scientists of today since they believed wacky stuff like alchemy?
Change != separation.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 28, 2012, 12:30:39 am
Quote
Interestingly though, most forms humanism require criticism and question of its tenets.How to be a heretical humanist:
Humans are just dust in the wind, not worth caring about.
Dun dun dun!
Religion Splinters more then it changes. And religion generally only changes due to mass societal pressure and not through internal refutation of its tenets.That "mass societal pressure" isn't 100% external; in most cases, not nearly. And plus, looking at the big western religious shifts like the protestant movement and Calvinism, you'd be hard pressed to call it anything other than "internal refutation."
Post by: MrWiggles on July 28, 2012, 12:44:25 am
I think this was meant to be light hearted, but I dont get it. oOQuoteInterestingly though, most forms humanism require criticism and question of its tenets.How to be a heretical humanist:
Humans are just dust in the wind, not worth caring about.
Dun dun dun!
Post by: i2amroy on July 28, 2012, 01:31:30 pm
Protestant Movement lead to a splintering, and not a reform of Catholicism. And Cavinist don't call themselves Protestants. And there like 5? forms of Calvinist, and good knows how many form of Protestant. They didnt reform their parent religion but splinter off.Baptism (which I believe is the protestant religion that has carried on the idea of splitting off the most into their current practices), currently has 31 different major organizations and affiliations in the United States alone, practically all of which disagree about some point with the others. Most of the other Protestant religions have many less groups, but there are still a lot of them.
Post by: Frumple on July 28, 2012, 01:37:16 pm
Post by: lemon10 on July 28, 2012, 01:39:59 pm
Post by: G-Flex on July 28, 2012, 01:43:10 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 28, 2012, 01:48:56 pm
Query for the Christians out there: Do you think god could duplicate a soul? Would they both be "you" if he did?Wut? Why?
Seems like another case of interpreting the Bible literaly. God is no miracle person, smiting people with lightning strikes and doing miracles and such. I'm probably going to collide with some kind of fundamentalist because of this but god is no physical entinity.
The second question is a question for the ethical commision in Geneve. Technically, I'm going to say yes, but only till one of you experience something the other doesn't. Humans are shaped by the things that happen to them. The real question would be which of the two would be the real one, to which the real answer would be neither.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 28, 2012, 02:15:58 pm
Post by: lemon10 on July 28, 2012, 03:20:33 pm
Many people have a problem with perfect duplication (eg. if it was used in teleporting), and say that the perfect copy wouldn't be you, even if they don't explicitly believe in the soul.
I wonder if people would think the same way about duplicating souls.
Also, souls are sort of supposed to be unique (although I don't know if it says it explicitly), so God being able to copy them would be a bit odd (although he IS omnipotent, so I suppose he could).
Seems like another case of interpreting the Bible literaly. God is no miracle person, smiting people with lightning strikes and doing miracles and such. I'm probably going to collide with some kind of fundamentalist because of this but god is no physical entinity.Are you Christian (just kind of wondering, because what you are saying implies you believe in a god, but also implies that you don't believe in the bible (well believe what it says is literally true at least))?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 28, 2012, 03:33:51 pm
I do believe in the Bible, but not in it's literal intrepetation.(Please note that the literal intrepretation of the Bible first came in sway during the 19the century, in America.)
It has been agreed since medieval times and before that the Bible has not one, but four meanings, of which the literal one is just one. Because, truly, if the Bible where to be taken literaly, they would have made sure that the stories inside didn't contradict each other.
Also, God omnipotentism doesn't need to need to be taken literaly, or you would end up with a paradox. (Ie, if God is omnipotent and infinitively good, then why does evil exist in the world.*) God omnipotentism manifests more in a way that he is able to act in every situation, through the good of every person(Again, not in the literal meaning).
*And beware of the Gods ways are unintelligible for us mortals argument. That way you're actually saying that nobody is responsible for his deeds, and that nothing bad exists, and that therefore you don't need to do anything about it.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 28, 2012, 06:44:13 pm
I do believe in the Bible, but not in it's literal intrepetation.(Please note that the literal intrepretation of the Bible first came in sway during the 19the century, in America.)Or maybe it's just wrong. I don't get to retroactively say that parts of what I said were metaphorical if they're shown to be untrue or contradictory, and I'm not sure why we give the Bible that privilege.
It has been agreed since medieval times and before that the Bible has not one, but four meanings, of which the literal one is just one. Because, truly, if the Bible where to be taken literaly, they would have made sure that the stories inside didn't contradict each other.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 28, 2012, 08:43:25 pm
Do you believe God is a perfect entity?
Post by: Frumple on July 28, 2012, 09:07:52 pm
S'actually the basis for a couple of arguments regarding divine omnipresence and monotheism that I've seen, which holds that the essence of perfection is indivisibility (and, along with that, incomparability) and goes from there to holding that perfection entails that the divine (held to necessarily be perfect, i.e. perfect is part of the base definition for God) must be singular and consequently omnipresent (for to be maximally singular there must be nothing that stands at the borders, so to speak, by th'postion being presented), because in order to be singular, there must be nothing 'outside' the entity, so to speak.
A different conception of perfection, such as holding that to be a perfect X one must be maximally X, has very different implications -- maximally doesn't necessarily entail infinitely. That's a much weaker, so to speak, position, that doesn't entail quite so many logically necessary capabilities (especially if a softer form of omnipotence is also being considered).
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 28, 2012, 10:20:52 pm
Let's rephrase it; do you think that Jehovah changes over time? Now physically, as a non-corporeal being that is both the alpha and the omega, I doubt you would hold that he changes much (although I would be interested if you felt that he did, and would love to hear it :) ).
Rather, I ask more in the sense of knowledge or mentality. Do you hold that god can learn? Or do you think that, as he has literal omniscience, he cannot be surprised, discover new knowledge, or change his mind (or more accurately, ever have reason to)?
Post by: Frumple on July 28, 2012, 10:35:04 pm
Change wouldn't be possible for that sort of being in the sense it is for a human, or at the very least wouldn't occur in a means we'd recognize. Vagueing it up a bit, it's hard to see exactly how change would work for a entity for whom all time is one time, its (more or less) present. Would that sort of thing even have a framework for past/future/change? From our perspective, though, almost definitely not -- all interactions with the divine would be with the exact same entity, regardless of temporal positioning from our side of things.
Alternatively, there may be no guarantee you're ever dealing with a sequentially aligned entity -- the god of the old testament might actually be a future entity, from the perspective of the God, and there would be no particular assurance that the entity you interacted with tomorrow wouldn't be radically different from the one today. I've not actually seen that put forward by a religiously aligned theologian, but it'd definitely be a possibility. S'interesting stuff, really.
E: That said, I imagine the more lay understanding would be that god could learn, but has no need to, as you mentioned. No reason, as all the decisions or knowledge god could wish to make or have is already known to god, so the general stuff that prompts humans toward learning or changing opinion simply isn't there.
As for change... maybe. From what I understand, that's somewhat underpinning the difference between new and old testament. Though it might be arguable that god did not change, merely the covenant god has with man, or whatever that is. Exactly where a person falls on it probably differs between denominations and religions, assuming they've ever really thought about it at all.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 28, 2012, 10:41:53 pm
And if in the mediaeval ages someone decided the meaning of the bible, then doesnt that mean that Biblical Literalism is before 19th century america?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 02:45:35 am
Why does it matter when Biblical literalism came around?Because it debunks the whole point of fundamentalists saying their intrepretation is the only good and pure one, and that the Bible is meant to be taken literal.
And if in the mediaeval ages someone decided the meaning of the bible, then doesnt that mean that Biblical Literalism is before 19th century america?
He, and some other people, wrote a philosophical work about the Bible, and described 4 ways in which the Bible might be interpreted. He never says which is the true one(of which there isn't). From 19 th century America we get the first large groups of people who believe that everything that's written in the Bible litteraly happened.
As stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).I do believe in the Bible, but not in it's literal intrepetation.(Please note that the literal intrepretation of the Bible first came in sway during the 19the century, in America.)Or maybe it's just wrong. I don't get to retroactively say that parts of what I said were metaphorical if they're shown to be untrue or contradictory, and I'm not sure why we give the Bible that privilege.
It has been agreed since medieval times and before that the Bible has not one, but four meanings, of which the literal one is just one. Because, truly, if the Bible where to be taken literaly, they would have made sure that the stories inside didn't contradict each other.
Okay, true, that's an ambiguous term.
Let's rephrase it; do you think that Jehovah changes over time? Now physically, as a non-corporeal being that is both the alpha and the omega, I doubt you would hold that he changes much (although I would be interested if you felt that he did, and would love to hear it :) ).
Rather, I ask more in the sense of knowledge or mentality. Do you hold that god can learn? Or do you think that, as he has literal omniscience, he cannot be surprised, discover new knowledge, or change his mind (or more accurately, ever have reason to)?
God is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 29, 2012, 02:57:05 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 03:04:06 am
God can't be a concept, as he's a character in the bibical works.That's Biblical literalism. Don't do that, please.
The god you see as character in the Bible is an anthromorphization of the Biblical god. (That is, if you decide not to interpret it the literal way)
Post by: Grek on July 29, 2012, 03:33:01 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 03:44:46 am
Quote from: http://community.tncc.edu/faculty/longt/REL210/history_of_composition_and_interpretation.htm
Two Western Christian (that is, Latin-speaking) Patristic figures, Augustine of Hippo and John Cassian, established principles of biblical interpretation that would endure well into the Renaissance. In De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Teaching), Augustine asserted the literary and rhetorical qualities of the Bible (now clearly defined by Christians as Old Testament and New Testament), recognized that the Bible employed different literary forms, and insisted on the necessity of knowing biblical languages. He also emphasized allegorical interpretation, but not at the expense of understanding literal senses. John Cassian introduced the notion that the Bible can be interpreted at four levels of interpretation or in four senses of scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the tropological (the moral sense), and the anagogical. Using, for example, the city of Jerusalem as it frequently appears in the Bible, he proposed that there is an actual city (the literal city of Jerusalem), but that Jerusalem can also be interpreted to mean the community of believers or the Church (the allegorical sense), that it can also signify the human soul in its passage through life (the tropological sense), and that it can also signify our final home in heaven (the anagogical sense). To present that more schematically:
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 03:52:39 am
Post by: Grek on July 29, 2012, 04:11:52 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on July 29, 2012, 04:18:18 am
God is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.
??? Yes, they do.
One of the fundamental concepts of theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) faith (of which Christianity is a crowning example) is that said deity is a "personal god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god)", to whit, a god...
Quote
...who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".
If we can talk about god as a person or entity, then questions such as whether said god learn are indeed relevant.
A god who can be thought of more as a process or concept sounds like a pantheistic god, which was not what I was asking a question about.
-Snip-
S'interesting stuff, really.
Yeah, it was kind of niggling away at me. That said, this sort of stuff is why I'm interested in the topic in general; you can argue existence till you're blue in the face, and get nowhere. Far more interesting are the properties and constraints such an entity would have.
Quote
E: That said, I imagine the more lay understanding would be that god could learn, but has no need to, as you mentioned. No reason, as all the decisions or knowledge god could wish to make or have is already known to god, so the general stuff that prompts humans toward learning or changing opinion simply isn't there.
As for change... maybe. From what I understand, that's somewhat underpinning the difference between new and old testament. Though it might be arguable that god did not change, merely the covenant god has with man, or whatever that is. Exactly where a person falls on it probably differs between denominations and religions, assuming they've ever really thought about it at all.
The Old/New schism is what got me thinking about this question to begin with; I think we can all agree that there is a pretty big shift in tone between the two, which then raises questions as to why. Not going to lie, as an atheist my suspected reason is a pretty simple one, but that doesn't mean I can't evaluate other possibilities.
I came up with the following alternates to the first option:
God is not omniscient; and is capable of making false starts, and thus learning.
God is not omnipotent; and you have alternate conflicting influences.
God needed to act like a homicidal maniac to begin to influence the crowd of the day, but once an established presence was made, more passive teachings could proceed.
Or, the act of god imparting himself into an earthly vessel altered his perspective on the matters somewhat.
Ahh well.
Post by: Grek on July 29, 2012, 04:22:59 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 04:25:40 am
That doesn't quite seem right to me. Where would, say, the Elijah test (the one where the prophet Elijah has the priests of Yahweh and the priests of Baal compete to see which god will light their sacrificial fire first) fall into that classification? It's clearly not something to be taken anagogically or tropologically, since the story invites those dubious about the existance of God to ask to have God's power put to the test before converting, something that no modern christian, muslim or jew would agree to. It's not acceptable morally (meaning it isn't a trope the authors of the bible would support) nor is it something that you'd want people trying in analogous situations. Allegorically, you could kinda sorta make a case for it being a "be confident in your faith, don't let people try to convince others away from God and do whatever you have to to convince them not to convert" sort of thing, but if that were the real reason, I seriously doubt that they'd have Elijah slit the Baalite's throats only after they fail to light their idol on fire. By elimination, the only way to interperate it is literally - the authors of the bible wanted it as a "Of course God is real, he lit that altar on fire once, remember?" sort of message, despite the fact that when priests pray to Yahweh for fire to descend from the heaven and whatnot, nothing of the sort actually happens.
http://bible.org/seriespage/ineffectual-prayers-baal-priests-1-kings-1823-29 (http://Link)
The above link doesn't really follow the four meanings thing, but it does give quite a bit more explanation then what you said.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 04:31:08 am
Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universeGod is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.
??? Yes, they do.
One of the fundamental concepts of theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) faith (of which Christianity is a crowning example) is that said deity is a "personal god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god)", to whit, a god...
From the exact same page. The fact that God is represented as an anthromorphological figure doesn't mean he's human or anything, or that he exist in a physical form.
Post by: Grek on July 29, 2012, 04:43:06 am
The above link doesn't really follow the four meanings thing, but it does give quite a bit more explanation then what you said.
I disagree with the author's essential thesis there. The story of Elijah vs. Baal is very clear about how the proof of your trust in God comes from without, in the form of your faith producing divine miracles, while the author of that article is focused on proofs from within, based on the mental state and perceptions of the faithful. I mean, yes, he later goes on to pontificate on how it's important to examine your trust in God, but that's not what Elijah was doing. At no point did Elijah doubt or examine his own faith. Instead, he was examining the faith of others, and providing them with a test. Never himself. If would be different if Elijah himself had doubts, and then personally compared the two faiths by praying first to Baal and getting no answer, but then praying to Yahweh and having the sacrifice be accepted. That would be a good analogy/metaphor for the personal crisis of faith the author is talking about. But, as it stands, that interpretation falls flat given the actual story in the actual bible.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2012, 10:02:53 am
As stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).What makes you think the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally? It doesn't say so anywhere inside. There's nothing to suggest that you shouldn't take it literally except that it ends up being wrong on many counts if you do (which is also the property of something which is wrong). And I guess you could do something similar with all stories, which means you could make, say, Harry Potter a true text about how the world is by selectively turning things into metaphors. I don't see the point.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 10:22:07 am
Who's says Harry Potter can't have a morale and learn you a lesson about how the you should live? Doing so is fine with meAs stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).What makes you think the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally? It doesn't say so anywhere inside. There's nothing to suggest that you shouldn't take it literally except that it ends up being wrong on many counts if you do (which is also the property of something which is wrong). And I guess you could do something similar with all stories, which means you could make, say, Harry Potter a true text about how the world is by selectively turning things into metaphors. I don't see the point.
As for not taking the Bible's literaly meaning as it's only meaning. There are the point where the Bible would then contradict itself. Now, assuming the people who wrote the Bible where no complete idiots, we can then safely say the Bible that the Bible was not meant to be interpreted as a purely litteral story(Not all of it anyway). After all, the morales and such corespond a bit to wel to be just a fact of random chance.
It's as much as a case of you shouldn't as a case of you better don't because most of us know the inherent dangers of fundamentalism.
As for the above text about Elijah vs Baal.
You can interpret the story in a variety of reasons. But it serves well to illustrate a serious discrepancy between the old and the New testament.
In the old testament, the Baal priests, who are finally killed by Elijah, are portrayed to be guilty of idolatry and such. In the new testament, you don't see that. There, the victim will be portrayed to be innocent. A scapegoat as it were.
Now, for the complete explanation on why this might be important, and some other reasons, I'm going to redirect you the blog of my religion teacher (http://erikbuys.wordpress.com/)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 10:30:43 am
As for not taking the Bible's literaly meaning as it's only meaning. There are the point where the Bible would then contradict itself.Yeah, no shit, it contradicts itself because it was written over the course of hundreds of years by dozens of authors, badly translated several times, and politically edited by every group powerful enough to get away with it.
Quote
After all, the morales and such corespond a bit to wel to be just a fact of random chance.I don't know what you mean here.
Quote
It's as much as a case of you shouldn't as a case of you better don't because most of us know the inherent dangers of fundamentalism.I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 10:46:54 am
2. That the morals in the stories in the Bible correspond too well for them to be just a collection of tales chosen for there literal intrepretation
3. Taking the literal intrepretation of the Bible (or any other (religious) book) as the only intrepretation is the basis for fundamentalism, which is almost never a good thing.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 29, 2012, 10:49:48 am
If you only consider actual Jesus quotes in the canon Bible (Assuming, for a moment, that all the Jesus quotes are genuine and Jesus was a real guy), the basic gist of the message is "You don't need all these laws if you're not a dick." That's not exactly a worldshattering revelation.
So I don't see how the morals of the Bible are too good to be random chance. Most is bad, and the good is common sense.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 10:53:28 am
1. Which would not have happened if it had been some real message from God, meant to be taken litteral, or even a record of truly happened things.Well, there isn't a god to send us a real message and most of the Bible probably never really happened, so that clears that up.
Quote
2. That the morals in the stories in the Bible correspond too well for them to be just a collection of tales chosen for there literal intrepretationThe morals in the stories in the Bible change around all the time. First Yahweh kills everyone for slighting him somehow, then he tells everyone not to kill, then he lays out a large list of things punished with death by stoning, then he sends the Israelites on a warpath and has them virtually wipe out the Canaanites, then Jesus who is Yahweh but also is not tells everyone to be all peace and love again, then Jesus kills trees for not giving him fruit out of season and starts beating money lenders out of the temples. Can you see how the morals here do not remain static at all?
Quote
3. Taking the literal intrepretation of the Bible (or any other (religious) book) as the only intrepretation is the basis for fundamentalism, which is almost never a good thing.Unless you're considering almost all Christians these days to be fundamentalists, not really.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 29, 2012, 10:54:16 am
2. That the morals in the stories in the Bible correspond too well for them to be just a collection of tales chosen for there literal intrepretationcorrespond too well to what? to what you have been taught to be right? by catholic people? morals that you and they themselves derived from liberally interpreting a book that when read objectively contradicts these?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on July 29, 2012, 11:12:33 am
With each other. If you were to take stories just for their literal values they would be a bunch of conflicting things, not form as clear a tale as they do. For example, in allmost all of the Old testament stories, whoever is punished has deserved his punishment, while the New testament tells you the victim/scapegoat to be innocent.2. That the morals in the stories in the Bible correspond too well for them to be just a collection of tales chosen for there literal intrepretationcorrespond too well to what? to what you have been taught to be right? by catholic people? morals that you and they themselves derived from liberally interpreting a book that when read objectively contradicts these?
That is a grave generalization. I don't know where you are from, but most people I know do not take the literal meaning of the Bible as the only true one.Quote3. Taking the literal intrepretation of the Bible (or any other (religious) book) as the only intrepretation is the basis for fundamentalism, which is almost never a good thing.Unless you're considering almost all Christians these days to be fundamentalists, not really.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2012, 11:32:20 am
With each other. If you were to take stories just for their literal values they would be a bunch of conflicting things, not form as clear a tale as they do. For example, in allmost all of the Old testament stories, whoever is punished has deserved his punishment, while the New testament tells you the victim/scapegoat to be innocent.Eve deserved to be thrown out of heaven for an act she committed before she even knew the difference between right and wrong? Everybody on earth (including children) deserved to be drowned in the great flood? Lot's wife deserved to be turned into a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder? Everybody in Jerusalem deserved to be brutally killed? And what exactly is the moral of those verses that tell you to kill gay people?
Post by: G-Flex on July 29, 2012, 11:46:59 am
Eve deserved to be thrown out of heaven for an act she committed before she even knew the difference between right and wrong?
Nitpick: That's not necessarily what the tree of knowledge is. Yeah, it's generally translated as "tree of knowledge of good and evil", but that doesn't necessarily refer to knowledge related to moral agency, especially considering some translation issues with the phrase.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2012, 12:04:48 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 29, 2012, 12:37:07 pm
noahs youngest son, ham, saw his father in his nakedness and went to tell his brothers of his father folly, who grabbed a towel and entered their fathers tent with their backs to their father and covered him and put him to sleep. when noah awoke from his sleep he realized what happened, and in his prophetic wisdom, he blamed his son ham, and cursed his grandson canaan and his progeny to become slaves to their brethren...
if i was religious, i'd be a misotheist
Post by: TheWetSheep on July 29, 2012, 09:03:53 pm
And what exactly is the moral of those verses that tell you to kill gay people?
There seems to be a widespread belief that being a Christian means that you want to kill all gay people. This is absolutely not true. While there are many anti-gay Christians out there, I, as a Christian, certainly am not, and no Christians I know personally(and I know quite a few) would like to kill gay people.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 09:07:20 pm
Leafsnail was speaking of the verses in Leviticus in which Yahweh declares that men who lie with men are abominations and must be stoned to death.
Post by: TheWetSheep on July 29, 2012, 09:14:01 pm
While there are few Christians in the west who wish to see homosexuals killed, plenty still exist in places like Uganda. Many Christians in the west are still bigoted against homosexuals all the same, however.This could be true. Although, I have visited Zimbabwe, and met many Christians there. They were as peaceful as Christians could be, and I am almost certain they were not extremely anti-gay.
Leafsnail was speaking of the verses in Leviticus in which Yahweh declares that men who lie with men are abominations and must be stoned to death.
I realize those verses are there. But there is also a verse, in Leviticus I think, that says you should not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk. Not everything from the Old Testament is completely relevant today. Jesus says, "Love your enemies", and I'm pretty sure that includes homosexuals. However, many Christians do not fully understand the Bible(I'm not claiming to either), and this is how you get such warped views from them. A very good example is Westborough Baptist Church.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 09:28:13 pm
This could be true. Although, I have visited Zimbabwe, and met many Christians there. They were as peaceful as Christians could be, and I am almost certain they were not extremely anti-gay.Zimbabwe=/=Uganda, but homosexuality is against the law there too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Zimbabwe) In fact, human rights in Zimbabwe are just terrible in general.
Quote
I realize those verses are there. But there is also a verse, in Leviticus I think, that says you should not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk.And it is very strange that such a thing would even come up in the first place.
Quote
Not everything from the Old Testament is completely relevant today. Jesus says, "Love your enemies", and I'm pretty sure that includes homosexuals.Homosexuals are your enemy? Anyway, Jesus quite clearly states that not one letter of the Law shall be struck until Heaven and Earth are destroyed and all is finished. (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm) Now, Heaven probably doesn't exist at all, but I can tell you for a fact that Earth is still very much here and not destroyed. It therefore follows that the Old Testament is not invalidated.
Post by: alway on July 29, 2012, 09:30:17 pm
Quote
Conservative U.S. Christian groups are setting up fronts in Africa to fight for anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation to promote their fundamentalist convictions, a report by a Boston research group said Tuesday.
Quote
Uganda’s so-called "Kill the Gays" law, which would levy the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality," was thought to have been defeated after Kaoma and Political Research Associates exposed the legislation’s American instigators in 2009. But it was reintroduced in Uganda’s Parliament this February.Not only is it bad, it originates in large part from America.
That was a year after the killing of David Kato, of Sexual Minorities Uganda, who was found bludgeoned to death in his Kampala home.
Amnesty International has reported an increasing intolerance in Africa that has resulted in "harassment, discrimination, persecution, violence and murders" against homosexuals in Africa. The report said the new campaigns also have caused more oppression of women by restricting their reproductive freedoms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18531948
Quote
Homosexual acts are illegal in Uganda and a bill proposing increasing jail terms to life is before parliament.
Quote
Uganda is a largely conservative society and many people condemn homosexuality both as unAfrican and unChristian. Gay people have faced physical attacks, losing their jobs and social rejection.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-uganda-gays-idUSBRE85R0XR20120628
Quote
But the damage has been done, gay rights campaigners in Uganda say. A vitriolic homophobia is rising in Ugandan society, they say, pointing to the meteoric rise of the evangelical church as a driving force.
Quote
Mugisha and other prominent gay rights campaigners say Bahati's initial bill was introduced directly after a March 2009 conference in Kampala that hosted representatives from the U.S. "ex-gay" movement.
U.S. evangelical pastor Scott Lively, who spoke at the conference, said it focused on the "recovery from homosexuality" and warned Ugandans the gay movement sought to "homosexualize society" and undermine the institution of marriage.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2012, 09:40:58 pm
There seems to be a widespread belief that being a Christian means that you want to kill all gay people. This is absolutely not true. While there are many anti-gay Christians out there, I, as a Christian, certainly am not, and no Christians I know personally(and I know quite a few) would like to kill gay people.I am aware of this. What I am asking is what the verse in which it says gay people must kill is meant to mean, considering that 10ebbor10 has suggested that the morals in the Bible are consistent. The fact that there are so many parts of the Bible which have to be straight up ignored suggests to me it is not a useful text for deriving your morals.
I realize those verses are there. But there is also a verse, in Leviticus I think, that says you should not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk. Not everything from the Old Testament is completely relevant today. Jesus says, "Love your enemies", and I'm pretty sure that includes homosexuals. However, many Christians do not fully understand the Bible(I'm not claiming to either), and this is how you get such warped views from them. A very good example is Westborough Baptist Church.Yeah, the Bible has plenty more strange irrelevant bits with no apparent morals than the ones I picked up on. I'm not sure how this undermines my point that actually the Bible might just be wrong or irrelevant rather than some incredibly deep metaphorical text. Interesting to know you regard homosexuals as enemies, though :P.
I... don't see how you can claim that the WBC do not fully understand the Bible. They follow some stuff you don't and they ignore some stuff you don't. They may be abhorrent, but I don't really see how they're "no true Christians".
Post by: Sheb on July 29, 2012, 10:05:37 pm
As for the Bible as moral guide, I guess it's kind of a Rorshard test: you can pretty much see whatever you want in it.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 29, 2012, 10:48:00 pm
Lots of Christian says that all those laws in the Old Testament are there so that no one canr espect them all and be perfect: we are all sinners and the only thing we can do is ask for God's forgiveness.So... God is intentionally setting impossible standards for all of us so we're forced to grovel? Why should I require forgiveness for something that is literally impossible for me, or any human being, to avoid doing?
As for the Bible as moral guide, I guess it's kind of a Rorshard test: you can pretty much see whatever you want in it.That's part of the problem - it's like an echo chamber resonating with the voice of God.
Post by: Hanslanda on July 29, 2012, 11:08:08 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I believe this belongs here for some reason. Do not take this post as part of the discussion, I just wanted to throw this in here.
Post by: TheWetSheep on July 29, 2012, 11:13:16 pm
Zimbabwe=/=Uganda, but homosexuality is against the law there too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Zimbabwe)Hey, I didn't know that.
Homosexuals are your enemy?Sorry, this was not the point I was trying to make. Not the best context for that quote, I guess.
Anyway, Jesus quite clearly states that not one letter of the Law shall be struck until Heaven and Earth are destroyed and all is finished. (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm) Now, Heaven probably doesn't exist at all, but I can tell you for a fact that Earth is still very much here and not destroyed. It therefore follows that the Old Testament is not invalidated.I realize this. This issue is a large debate in the Christian world at the moment, and I don't really understand it. I have an idea though. Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it." So maybe that means that he no longer wants people to persecute(or stone to death) homosexuals, but it's still a sin. I'm not sure if that makes sense, it's just an idea I had. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this story, but some religious leaders take a prostitute to Jesus, and since prostitution is punishable by death, they want him to condemn the woman and stone her. Under the law of the Old Testament, it's what he should have done. But he did not. He extended forgiveness to her. So I believe we are supposed to love, not condemn, homosexuals, but recognize that it is still a sin.
I agree with Leafsnail. I don't see how that would make any sense, and certainly don't think that is the reason for them. I think the main reason for them is relevance in their time, but I'm not really sure how that all works out.Lots of Christian says that all those laws in the Old Testament are there so that no one canr espect them all and be perfect: we are all sinners and the only thing we can do is ask for God's forgiveness.So... God is intentionally setting impossible standards for all of us so we're forced to grovel? Why should I require forgiveness for something that is literally impossible for me, or any human being, to avoid doing?
I think this is a really important thing that a lot of Christians seem to not understand.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I believe this belongs here for some reason. Do not take this post as part of the discussion, I just wanted to throw this in here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 29, 2012, 11:21:17 pm
I realize this. This issue is a large debate in the Christian world at the moment, and I don't really understand it. I have an idea though. Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." So maybe that means that he no longer wants people to persecute(or stone to death) homosexuals, but it's still a sin. I'm not sure if that makes sense, it's just an idea I had.That's completely contrary to what he says. If he hasn't come to abolish the law and wishes it fulfilled instead, then obviously it is still valid.
Quote
I'm not sure if you're familiar with this story, but some religious leaders take a prostitute to Jesus, and since prostitution is punishable by death, they want him to condemn the woman and stone her. Under the law of the Old Testament, it's what he should have done. But he did not. He extended forgiveness to her. So I believe we are supposed to love, not condemn, homosexuals, but recognize that it is still a sin.And what is the idea of sin to you?
Post by: TheWetSheep on July 29, 2012, 11:34:35 pm
I realize this. This issue is a large debate in the Christian world at the moment, and I don't really understand it. I have an idea though. Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." So maybe that means that he no longer wants people to persecute(or stone to death) homosexuals, but it's still a sin. I'm not sure if that makes sense, it's just an idea I had.That's completely contrary to what he says. If he hasn't come to abolish the law and wishes it fulfilled instead, then obviously it is still valid.QuoteI'm not sure if you're familiar with this story, but some religious leaders take a prostitute to Jesus, and since prostitution is punishable by death, they want him to condemn the woman and stone her. Under the law of the Old Testament, it's what he should have done. But he did not. He extended forgiveness to her. So I believe we are supposed to love, not condemn, homosexuals, but recognize that it is still a sin.And what is the idea of sin to you?
Like I said, I don't really understand these things. As to the question about sin, the textbook answer for a Christian would be an act against God's will. I'm not absolutely sure what I personally think about it, though. But I think the picture Hanslanda shared is really important. Jesus, who is fulfilling the law, took a completely non-violent, loving, forgiving stance, and so it is quite obvious that he doesn't want us to go around killing all the homosexuals. I realize there is the contradiction with the whole, "No letter of the law shall be erased", and I'm not sure about what that means. I do think the whole "relevance to the time" thing has something to do with it. Another easy way out would be to say that some things might have been messed up in translation, and that would be nice to believe, but I really doubt it.
Post by: Pnx on July 29, 2012, 11:37:35 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on July 30, 2012, 12:46:19 am
Go KILL your son!
Later...
Lol JK its just a test, now cut off his penis
Murder all these people and rape their women
Later...
Ok, you shouldn't be murdering people, thats a bad thing.
Take all these laws and severely punish those that break them
Later...
Ok, well, now I guess you shouldn't be so harsh on them after all. Love, mmkay?
Meanwhile, in another dimension....
Oh, these seem like perfectly fine teachings
Later...
Ugh! Obviously they were from the devil! Strike these Satanic Verses!
Meanwhile, at the legion of Mormon...
The blacks are inferior forever due to opposing GOD!
Later...
Ok, well, white just meant pure, and blacks can now be good! Thru hard work!
....
What are some other religions BS? I haven't done much studying of Eastern religions, or Native American, or Aborigine.
I've also forgot a bunch of the good ol Greek/Roman stuff, even though I see it all the damn time, thx media!
Norse stuff I mostly see in media as well, what all does that have in it? Never got into depth with it.
Theres plenty more religions out there of course, if you have examples please let me know, I'm collecting contradictions and neverminds.
Post by: G-Flex on July 30, 2012, 04:13:48 am
Lol JK its just a test, now cut off his penis
Huh.
Post by: Loud Whispers on July 30, 2012, 05:01:35 am
Murder all these people and rape their women
Later...
Ok, you shouldn't be murdering people, thats a bad thing.
Well in context, this is actually wrong. It's not murder, it's killing and it was A-OK because they did it faw gawd. And it wasn't rape because the women belonged to them at that point. Kinda worse really.
Post by: malloc on July 30, 2012, 07:07:01 am
I kinda like the old greek/roman/norse gods. They were personifications of various human emotions, traits, and habits. It reminds me of something a good psychologist could do, when helping people realize their problems or something.
My personal stance is as long as religion is a personal thing, something you don't force down on anyone, not even your own children, you can believe in whatever you want.
But when you try to force religion into education or politics, you are probably doing religion wrong, and you should feel bad.
Post by: miauw62 on July 30, 2012, 07:09:18 am
My personal stance is as long as religion is a personal thing, something you don't force down on anyone, not even your own children, you can believe in whatever you want.+1
But when you try to force religion into education or politics, you are probably doing religion wrong, and you should feel bad.
Imho, the bible is just really, really outdated. If it was not written, it wouldnt have really changed anything in that time.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 30, 2012, 07:51:46 am
He didn't stutter, but he did say he came to fulfill scripture which tells you to kill gays. There's definitely confusion here and just saying that people who are anti-gay are NO TRUE CHRISTIANS is not valid, considering they are merely following a piece of scripture that many Christians do not. You could argue that his peace and love message means he no longer wants you to kill them, but that doesn't mean he'd necessarily want to erase it as a sin completely.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I believe this belongs here for some reason. Do not take this post as part of the discussion, I just wanted to throw this in here.
Post by: Sheb on July 30, 2012, 08:57:27 am
Post by: Phmcw on July 30, 2012, 09:16:23 am
Anyway, didn't Jesus died to redeem us of our sin? So didn't he die so that gay could have all the steamy, dirty, slimy gay sex they want?
Hehehe yeah, but it's all about interpretation, and some pretty small disagreement over the doctrine gave us centuries of war, culminating in the 30 years war.
Somehow, Christians became much more civil in religious debates, when you think about it.
InB4 the first great communist doctrine war (does stalin's purges counts?). I think us human just love killing the shit out of each other ( another round of call of duty anyone?)
Post by: Leafsnail on July 30, 2012, 11:13:34 am
Anyway, didn't Jesus died to redeem us of our sin? So didn't he die so that gay could have all the steamy, dirty, slimy gay sex they want?This doesn't make sense. If Jesus were to pardon us of all sins forever that would equally leave murderers free to murder all they liked.
Post by: malloc on July 30, 2012, 11:32:25 am
This doesn't make sense.Well, we are talking about scripture..
Beside the those few "peace and love" parts, most of it is insane, at least seen with a modern set of morals and understanding of the world.
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 30, 2012, 12:14:21 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on July 30, 2012, 01:22:33 pm
Post by: LordExumius on July 30, 2012, 06:51:08 pm
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, this Jesus.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 30, 2012, 06:56:39 pm
The Law of Moses still applies, but as Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If you haven't fulfilled the Law in its entirety (You haven't, it's impossible) then you aren't qualified to judge others for their failures.
I was also of the school of thought that homosexuality was a mistranslation. Notably, where laws against stuff like murder are explicit, there is no explicit condemnation of two men falling in love (In fact there's a good argument to be made that David and Jonathan were gay together). It's always in some kind of context, usually involving shrine prostitution or rituals to Pagan gods.
As for teaching, I'm fine with people teaching others religion, including their kids. Telling them not to proselytize is kind of silly and useless. If they're being terroristic about it though, scaring the shit out of their kids and protesting people's funerals, that's not cool.
Remember: Indoctrination is just education you don't like.
Post by: LordExumius on July 30, 2012, 07:10:55 pm
Remember: Indoctrination is just education you don't like.
What I especially hate is when parents tell their children "You are a Christian" or "You are a Muslim" and then proceed to indoctrinate them to believe that for the rest of their life. That is child abuse. Plain and simple. Children should be encouraged to think for themselves.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 30, 2012, 07:14:46 pm
Remember: Indoctrination is just education you don't like.I disagree. Indoctrination is inducting someone into a doctrine so that they won't leave it. If you educate someone properly, their doctrines and opinions will be flexible and reality-based instead of self-perpetuating.
Post by: Leafsnail on July 30, 2012, 07:18:39 pm
Remember: Indoctrination is just education you don't like.Not really. Education tends to be evidence based (and ultimately involves telling the students about that evidence) if it's about how the world is. Passing on your personal faith is not.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 30, 2012, 07:25:23 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on July 30, 2012, 07:51:00 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on July 30, 2012, 07:52:57 pm
Post by: LordExumius on July 30, 2012, 07:56:28 pm
Indoctrination is like a Sith Lord - it's dealing with absolutes.
I'm tempted to put up the image of the pope being compared to Emperor Palpatine.
Post by: kaijyuu on July 30, 2012, 08:52:32 pm
Actually no, that's completely wrong. The earth being flat or round is a matter of objective reality (in fact so is whether any given god exists), but if I taught my child that the earth is flat and that they had to believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary that would be indoctrination. You can also educate someone on subjective matters such as art, as long as you're teaching them how to make their work look better according to almost universally accepted subjective standards.Man, I really hate arguing semantics.
Your example does not disagree with what I said. An art teacher definitely can "educate" a student on those subjective standards, but they would be pointing out that these standards are subjective; IE, there are no hard rules, and all these standards and guidelines can and should be broken if appropriate. An art teacher can "indoctrinate" their students by trying to push hard rules on their students, saying there's one "right" way to do something.
So what Il Palazzo said: Indoctrination is teaching absolutes. My addendum would be "absolutes when applied to subjective concepts."
Post by: alway on July 30, 2012, 09:40:08 pm
Pfft, a single image doesn't do that comparison justice. Just do a google image search on "Emperor Popetine."Indoctrination is like a Sith Lord - it's dealing with absolutes.
I'm tempted to put up the image of the pope being compared to Emperor Palpatine.
Post by: EveryZig on July 31, 2012, 02:34:55 am
This doesn't make sense. If Jesus were to pardon us of all sins forever that would equally leave murderers free to murder all they liked.You know, funny thing about that. According to the version of Christianity I have heard from evangelists, hell is both eternal and uniform for all its occupants.
Which means that if you are a nonbeliever, no matter what crimes you commit in life or how little you regret them, god will never punish you for your misdeeds in any way, because you are already going to hell for a sin you never actually committed (original sin). Perfect justice at work!
Post by: TheWetSheep on July 31, 2012, 08:51:59 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on July 31, 2012, 08:55:01 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 31, 2012, 11:40:26 pm
And the bible shouldnt be a document that can be misconstrued to begin with. The reason why it is so easy to find in the bible whatever you want, is because the bible is a self contradicting mess from a barbaric culture of desert nomads.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on July 31, 2012, 11:46:10 pm
The reason why it is so easy to find in the bible whatever you want, is because the bible is a self contradicting mess from a barbaric culture of desert nomads.It's also been translated multiple times.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 31, 2012, 11:48:12 pm
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 01, 2012, 12:23:30 am
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 12:33:32 am
I don't know about anyone else, but my major disagreements with Christianity are fairly universal, foremost being a total lack of evidence to back up anything they claim.The regular way around that is the faith gambit; something about the religion requires belief instead of knowledge.
I haven't a clue why though. Faith is something that helped killed my faith, heh.
Re: Christianity's muddled nature. The religion's been revised so many times over the years it's ridiculous. If one believes that it started out as a true religion, it's hard to argue any of the sects today resemble that original truth. That's why a bunch of the denominations claim they go back to the basics, or fix the problems introduced over time, etc etc. This is a big part of Mormonism, for example, as Joseph Smith rewrote small portions of the bible to remove ambiguity and of course introduced his supplement in order to remove even more ambiguity*. But of course, these denominations also change over time, kinda removing any legitimacy to their claim of objective truth.
So to any Christians, I really suggest you make your own interpretation instead of following any specific denomination's. They really have no better claim to being "right" than you, so pick what feels right to you.
*As a former Mormon, I will note that the changes to the Bible, though small, didn't really remove any ambiguity at all, and honestly seemed quite random. None of the changes were all that big, and you can still find conflicts with other portions. The BoM though was extremely blatant with little room for different interpretations, so that's a plus I guess?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 12:37:51 am
Thankfully, faith is a completely illegitimate concept.I don't know about anyone else, but my major disagreements with Christianity are fairly universal, foremost being a total lack of evidence to back up anything they claim.The regular way around that is the faith gambit; something about the religion requires belief instead of knowledge.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 01, 2012, 12:55:46 am
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 01:11:47 am
"Why do you know/believe/have faith in this?"
"Because I do."
Consequences of that being gullibility, willful ignorance, fallicious claims of self evidence, all that fun stuff.
Post by: Frumple on August 01, 2012, 01:26:57 am
I'd label it as an excuse for circular arguments, myself.Little more accurate there. I have faith the world around me exists, ferex, even though I can't really justify that belief without resorting to fallacious or inadequate arguments. An unjustifiable or unjustified belief isn't anything unusual -- it can be called an axiom in the case of the former, hypothesis (or educated guess, if you'd prefer) in the case of the latter, but they're both examples of faith, or unjustified belief. It's kind of endemic even in the areligious. We as a species base pretty much everything around a baseline few, and then add more to taste or situation. Religious faith is just a particular sort that's got some old baggage that tends to cause problems. Also doesn't help that some of its general axioms tend to overlap with some other, not religiously based, axioms that we've been getting a lot more actual use from. Helps cause some of the issues, heh.
"Why do you know/believe/have faith in this?"
"Because it's impossible to function as a human being without making the assumption."
Though I'd agree with those last two fun things :P I get a lot of mileage out willful ignorance, primarily regarding existential or societal issues. Way too much that, if I didn't pointedly ignore, the only rational action would be suicide.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 01:37:13 am
That said, I'm... mostly fine with belief. Faith however, at least as I see it, takes it a bit further; still not claiming knowledge, but claiming it has equal (or more) weight to knowledge. So you'll have people denying empirical evidence against say, young earth creationism on the basis that it violates their faith. This is a Bad Thing.
If we started seeing glitches in the matrix, would you deny them on the basis of your faith that the world around you exists? If not, I don't think you have "faith" at all, but just regular 'ol belief, which is something that changes easily in the face of new evidence.
Quote
I get a lot of mileage out willful ignorance, primarily regarding existential or societal issues. Way too much that, if I didn't pointedly ignore, the only rational action would be suicide.Total side note here: Honestly, I feel a big part of maturity is dealing with these issues without denying them. If your response to the world being shitty is to ignore the shittiness or give up entirely, instead of working to fix said shittiness to the best of your reasonable ability, you really need to grow up a bit. Sorry :X
Post by: MrWiggles on August 01, 2012, 01:39:23 am
Its the ultimate cop out. The ultimate right of way. A grand ability to be dismissive to everyone but appear to have an intellectual high grand.
I contend that it doesn't matter if this isn't actually reality, that even if there was something outside of our Plato Cave that it doesn't have any impact on us. We've devised a series of refutation and standard of evidence which have allowed us to greatly understand and exploit this shared perception of reality. And our means to understand our world have been proven to be quite sharp an innovative and if it so happens that our experiences are muted to the far grander world outside our limited cave, then we'll find that out to eventually.
But for now, its a useless rhetoric.
We have a firm understanding that we're on a planet and living here that is demonstrable and refutable. Our understanding holds true to scrunity and makes predictive results.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 01:43:56 am
I've always hated that kind of thinking; how we can't really believe anything because reality itself is a faulty perception and there no real way to know what actual reality is.These arguments are pulled out in response to people being dismissive and claiming the ultimate high ground. When discussing unknowable things, lots of people dismiss all of it on the basis that it's unknowable... so the obvious response is to point out the one unknowable thing almost universally agreed upon, to point out their folly.
Its the ultimate cop out. The ultimate right of way. A grand ability to be dismissive to everyone but appear to have an intellectual high grand.
The rest of your post is a fine existential argument, but doesn't undermine the actual arguments being presented when people bring up solipsism.
Post by: LordExumius on August 01, 2012, 03:04:57 am
I'd label it as an excuse for circular arguments, myself.Little more accurate there. I have faith the world around me exists, ferex, even though I can't really justify that belief without resorting to fallacious or inadequate arguments. An unjustifiable or unjustified belief isn't anything unusual -- it can be called an axiom in the case of the former, hypothesis (or educated guess, if you'd prefer) in the case of the latter, but they're both examples of faith, or unjustified belief. It's kind of endemic even in the areligious. We as a species base pretty much everything around a baseline few, and then add more to taste or situation. Religious faith is just a particular sort that's got some old baggage that tends to cause problems. Also doesn't help that some of its general axioms tend to overlap with some other, not religiously based, axioms that we've been getting a lot more actual use from. Helps cause some of the issues, heh.
"Why do you know/believe/have faith in this?"
"Because it's impossible to function as a human being without making the assumption."
Though I'd agree with those last two fun things :P I get a lot of mileage out willful ignorance, primarily regarding existential or societal issues. Way too much that, if I didn't pointedly ignore, the only rational action would be suicide.
The thing is, though, that up until now, no one has given you or told you anything tangible to make you believe the existence around us is a false one. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with whoever is assertng this. However with religion, there are alternative, tangible answers for some of the questions it posits, none of which were correctly answered by religion itself. What created the universe? The Big Bang. How did humans get here? Evolution. There are scientific answers that have been proved through scientific method. What you are using is known as the un-falsifiable claim. That because it can't be disproved, that makes it okay to believe it. This is patently ridiculous in many ways, not the least of which is that it would mean would have to entertain every little possibility that a child comes up with. An argument's already been made about the Celestial Tea Pot: you can't prove it isn't there, so we should all worship it! I understand where you're coming from, though. It's been human nature for the past few millions of years to seek answers, and if we don't find answers, we make up our own. But please enlighten me: what axioms based in unjustifiable claims have been useful at all?
Though personally, I don't think the idea of a god should even be considered scientifically, Occam's Razor and all that.
Post by: malloc on August 01, 2012, 06:55:42 am
Though personally, I don't think the idea of a god should even be considered scientifically, Occam's Razor and all that.
You are forgetting the idea of a god is all about not thinking too hard about it. It has to be some magical constant, or the idea falls apart when exposed to scrutiny.
But I love the idea of a scientific peer review of a god! Problem is that we would probably have no god/s then. It's very hard to fit a (or any) god into our modern understanding of the world.
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 07:13:05 am
Having decided that some kind of spiritual life is desirable, I then moved on to the question of what the details of this should be. One of the first axioms that I decided to have faith in was that each person should decide this for themselves, and that the communication of belief systems should only be done for the purposes of exploration and comparison. So the biggest sin in my personal faith is telling others what to believe. I mention this because I believe it is universal and the only exception to its own rule. I will also not go into details about the complex belief system I subsequently developed, unless someone requests it because they are curious, but I will go into some of the development process to illustrate and give examples about the process of spiritual exploration.
Deism. The idea of a higher power is a powerful one, and can be a useful one. It is certainly not necessary, but many people find it simplifies things. While logic clearly dictates that the christian god can not exist without contradiction, it does not do the same for a higher power in general. Your 'god' may not necessarily have to be benevolent, or omnipotent, or any of the other things that the stupid religions claim, but this doesn't mean there is no higher power. George Carlin put it well when he said he worships the sun, because it is a huge life giving force that sustains and nurtures all of us. The sun is a higher power, even to an atheist scientist, higher - check, power - check. But George Carlin also went on to say that he doesn't pray to the sun because the sun can't hear and isn't listening. He claimed instead to pray to Joe Pesci, who he said had a higher success rate at fulfilling prayers than any of the gods he had previously tested. For me the question became "What could I apply the name 'god' to that would give me some psychological or emotional wellbeing". I came up with many answers to this question, and in the end couldn't decide so I now worship three separate gods, each one a subset of one of the others.
Afterlife/heaven/reincarnation. The best strategy here is to think about what you want to happen to you after death, and then just believe that will happen. Be careful though that you choose something deep and meaningful, as you may have trouble believing in or even caring about frivolous crap like dozens of virgins or mountains of gold later in life. The idea of spiritual enlightenment is very powerful, some kind of ascension to a higher plane of existence. I particularly like this one as it appeals also to knowledge and reason, a place where you recieve great knowledge and understanding is both comforting and also objectively worthwhile. I didn't actually go for this one myself but you can change your mind if you come up with something you like better. I would also like to point out that I find the idea of hell and the devil totally retarded. Sure as a method of controlling guillible populations with an atrophied sense of morality it could be useful, but to voluntarily believe in that crap seems pretty dumb. Still if it gives you comfort to believe that the people you don't like will be punished after death go right ahead.
Purpose. This is the big one, your existence needs a purpose. This purpose will also define most of your moral framework as it defines what you should and shouldn't do to achieve it. It is also the easiest one in many cases to think up though, as most people already have some idea of what they think their life is about, and are waiting only for permission to integrate it into their spiritual framework. You can have more than one, you can change it as often as you like. It can be as simple as growing nice tomatoes your garden or as epic as creating a utopian world where all people live in peace and harmony.
Ritual. Rituals are nice, try and make some random ritual behaviour up. They help keep the circadian rhythm regular and give the psyche something solid and predictable to build around.
So that is my bit on Theology. I hope it was useful/interesting to someone. The main point is that faith is the baby and religion is the bathwater.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 07:58:42 am
Afterlife/heaven/reincarnation. The best strategy here is to think about what you want to happen to you after death, and then just believe that will happen.So... self delusion? Is this a healthy way to deal with uncertainty?
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 08:14:38 am
Afterlife/heaven/reincarnation. The best strategy here is to think about what you want to happen to you after death, and then just believe that will happen.So... self delusion? Is this a healthy way to deal with uncertainty?
You have to acknowledge the difference between blind faith (self delusion) and aware faith, which is where you know you made it up, you know it isn't necessarily true, but you just believe it because it feels good to believe it. Yes I think it is healthy. But not as a general way to deal with uncertainty, only in this specific case. Most cases of uncertainty can be made certain through investigation and analysis. With death this is not the case. Secondly everyone has some superstitions about death, it is hardwired into our brain on a very deep level. You yourself have some sort of instinctive fear of death, and a vague concept of what it might be like to die. Some people may deny it, but that denial is self delusion. I am proposing that we acknowledge our instinctive need to believe, and then consciously control it, thus denying it control over us.
I am interested in your opinion of my more general point, about faith still having a place as a social and psychological tool. Did you quote that line as an example of how my whole position is wrong, or were you generally in agreement and just wanted to question the specifics of what I was suggesting having faith in?
Post by: LordExumius on August 01, 2012, 10:36:24 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 01, 2012, 12:50:36 pm
This is a very intelligent approach to faith.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 01:52:06 pm
Death is a big one for example. Here is one of the most powerful forces in human society, we fear death, we do things every day to avoid it. Our knowledge of consciousness is not sufficient to describe or investigate scientifically what it is like to die. A detailed physiological description of death and how it works on a biological level has no value as a psychological tool to make us feel better about it. What does a scientist tell a dying man to make him feel the peace and serenity that we all desire to feel at death? 'I am sorry' seems to be the standard. This is ineffective.It isn't about making anyone feel better, it's about what is true. And not everyone wants to feel peace and serenity when they die, quit imposing your feelings on everyone else.
Quote
Death is not the only thing, we base our moral framework on spiritual conscience.Our moral frameworks are based upon societal conscience, spirituality has nothing to do with it. Murder is bad because a society where murder is acceptable will not see any population growth and everyone will be trying to avoid being murdered instead of being productive. Theft is bad because a society where theft is acceptable will fall into chaos as people steal resources from one another instead of voluntarily exchanging them under one system or another.
Quote
Science does not describe any specific values or morals without first having specific goals, and even then most of us see some of the results of reasoned scientific morality to be abhorrent. For example one of the dominant driving forces in religious morality was the need for the species to procreate and continue to exist. A rational treatment of this goal would lead to rape being a force for good.What the fuck are you even no it wouldn't. Hell, the Abrahamic religions are the ones that condoned rape, under the law prescribed in the Bible rapists are required to pay a small fine to the victim's father and then marry the victim forever.
You want a rational treatment of positive population growth?
A. We want more people.
B. People are willing to have sex without coercion.
C. People having sex will give us more people.
D. Problem never existed in the first place.
Quote
Quantifying all the vague feelings of morality and values we have is not really possible, and yet I for one am not willing to give the up morality in favour of expedience. At any rate you need a values system to decide on a goal, without which rationality is unable to measure success or progress.I am capable of quantifying all my morality and values. That you are apparently not does not make it impossible.
Quote
Purpose. This is the big one, your existence needs a purpose.Wrong. Our existence does not have an objective purpose, nor does it require one. We exist independent of desire and reasoning for our existence. That is in itself enough.
You have to acknowledge the difference between blind faith (self delusion) and aware faith, which is where you know you made it up, you know it isn't necessarily true, but you just believe it because it feels good to believe it. Yes I think it is healthy.Those are both forms of self-delusion, and they aren't healthy. They leave one unwilling to search for actual answers in favor of manufactured ones.
Quote
Secondly everyone has some superstitions about death, it is hardwired into our brain on a very deep level. You yourself have some sort of instinctive fear of death, and a vague concept of what it might be like to die. Some people may deny it, but that denial is self delusion. I am proposing that we acknowledge our instinctive need to believe, and then consciously control it, thus denying it control over us.There you go projecting again. Not everyone has superstitions about death. Plenty of people accept the scientific model of life and death without tacking on unreal ideas to it.
Claiming an instinctive fear of death is inaccurate. Being afraid of death and possessing a will to live are two different things. Almost everyone has the latter, but only people who do not accept their mortality have the former.
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 01, 2012, 01:56:16 pm
What does a scientist tell a dying man to make him feel the peace and serenity that we all desire to feel at death?Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Your body will be returned to the earth, so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as you have dined upon flora and fauna during your lifetime."
I don't see why people need more serenity than this notion of interconnectedness, of almost reincarnation-like circle of life.
It should go without saying, that this quote treats a person and their body as the same thing.(i.e.there's no soul)
I had seen one person expressing Drunken's kind of approach to faith(a Christian one at that) once before. It was Father George Coyne in an interview with Dawkins. It's probably the only approach that I can appreciate.
Here (http://richarddawkins.net/rdf_productions/george_coyne) is the interview.
Post by: malloc on August 01, 2012, 03:47:28 pm
I don't see why people need more serenity than this notion of interconnectedness, of almost reincarnation-like circle of life.Even more mind boggling, most of the matter that you are made up of originates from fusion processes in the first stars. Me, you, us, we are all literally made from stars.
We can even expand this reincarnation outlook of life, we are all literally connected chemically. All the matter that make up your body, only make up your body at most a few years. The atoms will eventually be replaced and travel on to make up some other piece of matter.
Post by: Durin Stronginthearm on August 01, 2012, 04:16:56 pm
You have to acknowledge the difference between blind faith (self delusion) and aware faith, which is where you know you made it up, you know it isn't necessarily true, but you just believe it because it feels good to believe it. Yes I think it is healthy. But not as a general way to deal with uncertainty, only in this specific case.
Have you ever read Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut? There is a fictional religion in that, Bokononism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokononism), along similar lines to what you're talking about here.
Quote
The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma (harmless untruths) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
Post by: kaijyuu on August 01, 2012, 05:00:29 pm
The thing is, though, that up until now, no one has given you or told you anything tangible to make you believe the existence around us is a false one. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with whoever is assertng this. However with religion, there are alternative, tangible answers for some of the questions it posits, none of which were correctly answered by religion itself. What created the universe? The Big Bang. How did humans get here? Evolution. There are scientific answers that have been proved through scientific method. What you are using is known as the un-falsifiable claim. That because it can't be disproved, that makes it okay to believe it. This is patently ridiculous in many ways, not the least of which is that it would mean would have to entertain every little possibility that a child comes up with. An argument's already been made about the Celestial Tea Pot: you can't prove it isn't there, so we should all worship it! I understand where you're coming from, though. It's been human nature for the past few millions of years to seek answers, and if we don't find answers, we make up our own. But please enlighten me: what axioms based in unjustifiable claims have been useful at all?*cracks knuckles*
Though personally, I don't think the idea of a god should even be considered scientifically, Occam's Razor and all that.
Things that give cause to doubt the reality of the world around us.
Are you a lucid dreamer? If not, then you have existed in a world you know is not real, while believing it to be real. Only once you exited the dream did you realize the falsehood of that reality. There is nothing to suggest this cannot apply to what you are doing right now. In addition to that, assuming we ever invent Matrix esque virtual reality, there will be yet another situation where we cannot distinguish "real" from "fake."
To claim that the world around us is self evident is a circular argument. Asking for "tangible" evidence for solipsism is like asking for religious evidence for atheism. You cannot defend empiricism with empiricism, any more than you can defend god with god.
Burden of proof.
It lies on whoever is making an assertion. It is NOT on whoever's making a "positive" assertion, as a "positive" assertion has no meaningful definition (I can flip around any argument from "positive" to "negative," and vice versa, but just changing around the wording). So long as one is making a claim that they have knowledge of something, it is their responsibility to provide evidence for it. It doesn't matter what that knowledge is or what it applies to.
The natural existing with or without the supernatural.
The natural (empirical reality) can exist with or without the supernatural. It can be entirely self contained with nothing outside it... and it might not. All of science can fit into any of the infinite religions that allow for it (nothing science can ever prove will go against Deism, for example).
The fallacy here is thinking that disproving one religious theory disproves all. You can tear Christianity to shreds, but that has no effect on Hinduism. You can tear all the world's religions to shreds, even, but there are infinite other possibilities that are unaffected.
The unfalsifiable.
By definition, these things cannot be proven false. So claiming that by being unfalsifiable, they are false, is a fallacy I don't think I have to explain.
But the consequence of this is yes, you do have to entertain any random thought that is logically consistent. Welcome to reality. You're not on the African savannah anymore where survival is the only thing you need to care about. However, that doesn't mean you have to believe everything that comes to mind... since the unfalsifiable cannot be proven one way or the other, it by extension has no effect on the world around you. It does nothing "tangible," or empirical. So, whatever conclusion you make, yes or no, true or false, makes no difference to your life here. If it did, it would no longer be unfalsifiable.
So if you want to blanketly say "no" to the unfalsifiable (except empiricism, of course), that's fine. Saves a lot of trouble entertaining idle thoughts. But no claim of knowledge can be made without fallacy.
Inductive arguments.
Inductive arguments can only be made with evidence to support them. Without evidence, you can make no claim based on any inductive argument, be it occam's razor or whatever. They are, after all, simply educated guesses with varying degrees of certainly (some getting ridiculously close to 100% but never quite making it).
Any inductive argument made on the unfalsifiable is an immediate fallacy, as there is no evidence to support it. If there was, it wouldn't be unfalsifiable. If you literally have no knowledge relating to a celestial teapot (which you actually do since that's a horrible analogy, but nevermind) you literally cannot make a claim one way or another beyond simple hypothesis, with no hypothesis being more well founded than another.
I think that's everything. In the future, don't defend empiricism with empirical arguments, because that is just as ridiculous and defending a religion with religious arguments. If you do that, you're just proving your opponent right about your unresolved cognitive dissonance.
Post by: Moghjubar on August 01, 2012, 06:34:50 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8
Post by: Drunken on August 01, 2012, 08:48:11 pm
I felt like there was some frustration and maybe even defensiveness in your post. I am sorry if I have caused offence, I was merely stating an opinion. I can't help feeling like you are telling me I shouldn't believe what I believe because you believe something else which you hold to be self evident and superior. If faith is such an illegitimate concept, how do you justify your own faith that your subjective perception of the world is the only correct one?
So what is true? I hadn't realised that someone out there knew what it was like to die, forgive my naive assumptions. I am very excited to hear the truth, please supply it as soon as is convenient. Making people feel better about uncertainty is in my opinion an acceptable way to deal with not knowing the truth in the interim while you investigate it. Luckily I won't need an interim solution once you reply with the truth.Death is a big one for example...It isn't about making anyone feel better, it's about what is true. And not everyone wants to feel peace and serenity when they die, quit imposing your feelings on everyone else.
I am not sure what the difference is between moral framework and societal conscience. They seem to be roughly synonymous. Saying morality has nothing to do with spirituality is just denial of a huge body of evidence. In theory it does seem possible to design a system of morality that is not based on any form of spirituality but this is not the norm. Catholic cultures generally dissaprove of abortion, many islamic cultures disaprove of women showing their heads or driving cars. I could list examples of morality influenced by religion for many many pages, and I find very few examples of moral rules that have not occurred in and been implemented as a result of religious texts.QuoteDeath is not the only thing, we base our moral framework on spiritual conscience.Our moral frameworks are based upon societal conscience, spirituality has nothing to do with it.
I will admit the rape example was a bad one. You didn't however address the main point of the quote, which was that Science does not describe any specific values or morals without first having specific goals. Your counter argument seems to be mostly semantic. "D. Problem never existed in the first place." Actually it did, for thousands of years. Now we have overpopulation, perhaps legalising murder is a better example. It would be expedient to reduce population numbers.QuoteScience does not describe any specific values or morals without first having specific goals, and even then most of us see some of the results of reasoned scientific morality to be abhorrent. For example one of the dominant driving forces in religious morality was the need for the species to procreate and continue to exist. A rational treatment of this goal would lead to rape being a force for good.What the fuck are you even no it wouldn't. Hell, the Abrahamic religions are the ones that condoned rape, under the law prescribed in the Bible rapists are required to pay a small fine to the victim's father and then marry the victim forever.
You want a rational treatment of positive population growth?
A. We want more people.
B. People are willing to have sex without coercion.
C. People having sex will give us more people.
D. Problem never existed in the first place.
This is fascinating, please tell me in detail about your moral framework and the scientific/rational reasons behind each part of it. You can use pm if you feel that it is outside the scope of this thread but I think it could be argued that it is relevant. Again though I think you missed my main point, the same as the previous part, rephrased: you need a values system to decide on a goal, without which rationality is unable to measure success or progress. Once you have decided that X is good and Y is bad, then you can rationally decide on strategies to maximise X and minimise Y, but the decision that one is good and the other is bad is a moral one. Rationality is inherently objective and can therefore not make any value judgements without a frame of reference.QuoteQuantifying all the vague feelings of morality and values we have is not really possible, and yet I for one am not willing to give the up morality in favour of expedience. At any rate you need a values system to decide on a goal, without which rationality is unable to measure success or progress.I am capable of quantifying all my morality and values. That you are apparently not does not make it impossible.
Again a semantic argument. I thought it was clear what I meant but I am often guilty of ambiguity in text so I apologise for it.Let me try again:QuotePurpose. This is the big one, your existence needs a purpose.Wrong. Our existence does not have an objective purpose, nor does it require one. We exist independent of desire and reasoning for our existence. That is in itself enough.
Purpose. This is the big one, people feel the need for a purpose.
No, one is self delusion the other is pretending. I play computer games, are you implying that when I play eve online I am deluding myself that I am actually flying space ships? Sure synthesising faith is a little stronger than your every day pretending, but it is only different in magnitude. It is called the willing suspension of disbelief sometimes. Also with regard to searching for actual answers: A) I was talking about things that are unknowable and unverifiable, I consider it a waste of time to search for actual answers to these. B) Even if I were proposing inventing beliefs about things that may one day be definitively answered (I guess I was, it is theoretically possible that one day we may understand neurology well enough to answer some of these issues), there is no part of believing something that necessarily precludes me from learning more about it. I read about the neurochemistry of death for example, the breakdown of bodily functions, I am fascinated by medicine. If a new study came out that quantified in perfect detail the entire subjective experience of dying I would avidly read it and incorporate it into my beliefs. Maybe you are unable to accept new information once you have formed a belief, and are projecting. My beliefs change on an hourly basis. They have to I get bored with them after a while.QuoteYou have to acknowledge the difference between blind faith (self delusion) and aware faith, which is where you know you made it up, you know it isn't necessarily true, but you just believe it because it feels good to believe it. Yes I think it is healthy.Those are both forms of self-delusion, and they aren't healthy. They leave one unwilling to search for actual answers in favor of manufactured ones.
QuoteSecondly everyone has some superstitions about death, it is hardwired into our brain on a very deep level. You yourself have some sort of instinctive fear of death, and a vague concept of what it might be like to die. Some people may deny it, but that denial is self delusion. I am proposing that we acknowledge our instinctive need to believe, and then consciously control it, thus denying it control over us.There you go projecting again. Not everyone has superstitions about death. Plenty of people accept the scientific model of life and death without tacking on unreal ideas to it.
Claiming an instinctive fear of death is inaccurate. Being afraid of death and possessing a will to live are two different things. Almost everyone has the latter, but only people who do not accept their mortality have the former.
This is a hard one to tackle. I maintain that everyone is in fact afraid of death. Well the vast majority. Coming to terms with the scientific explanation of death does no change that for most people. You can test if you are afraid of death, just put yourself in a dangerous situation and see if you feel fear. Bungee jumping is one way to do this without any actual risk. If you feel fear, that is usually the fear of death. I also think that it is true that most people have superstitions about death, though this is harder to demonstrate. These superstitions are usually subconscious so they are often not evident. The fact that people are afraid of death is some evidence though, as there is no scientific or rational reason for this fear. Death is inevitable and therefore to fear it, especially if it is really only a nullification of consciousness, is not rational. I think it is widely accepted that people are afraid of death. If you can cite evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Speaking of unfalsifiable, since every religion is unfalsifiable and therefore all of the gods / spirits / etc may exist, we should convert to every religion at once!
I tried that once, it was a lot of fun but not really sustainable and very confusing
Post by: Cthulhu on August 01, 2012, 09:12:01 pm
As for solipsism, the question of whether or not reality is a perfect illusion is about as valuable as the question of whether or not there's an invisible, intangible leprechaun on my shoulder. If it looks like an apple, feels like an apple, tastes like an apple, and has the same nutritional content as an apple, it's an apple. There's no meaningful difference between an apple and an illusion that functions identically to an apple.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 01, 2012, 09:22:42 pm
I am interested in your opinion of my more general point, about faith still having a place as a social and psychological tool. Did you quote that line as an example of how my whole position is wrong, or were you generally in agreement and just wanted to question the specifics of what I was suggesting having faith in?It's the entire thing - I just felt that was the clearest statement of it. Yes, there is uncertainty about what happens after death. But surely the better way to deal with that uncertainty is to accept you don't know, realise that isn't a problem and go on living your life. I feel that this is a healthier approach to take to uncertainty than attempting to trick yourself into believing something comforting (since, without evidence, you'll end up questioning that belief in your mind unless you've gone a long way down the road of self delusion or have a very strange ability to never question any of your beliefs).
As an example of what I mean, in two weeks I will receive my exam results. I don't know whether they'll be better or worse than expected, and there's no reasonable investigation I can perform to find it out right now. I could take your approach, and trick myself into thinking they're gonna be great - but I'm inevitably going to doubt this as the moment of truth draws closer as I have no evidence for thinking this (note that plenty of religious people who claim to believe in a heavenly afterlife are still scared on their deathbeds). In addition, if that time passes and it turns out I did poorly, I'll have to deal with the problem of crushed hopes as well as the actual consequences of performing badly (this is less easy to take back to the life after death example, but it's possible if there's an afterlife that isn't as great as the one you were hoping for, and applies to other areas of wishful thinking like "I believe God will answer my prayers/ protect me").
The solution I offer: admit I don't know. There's nothing I can do about it either way, so I'll just keep living my life until the moment comes and react to it appropriately then. Fear of death is a reasonable incentive to not do stupid things so I don't want to get rid of it completely, just make sure I don't think about it unnecessarily.
Post by: Grek on August 01, 2012, 09:33:11 pm
1. Death is like being born, except in reverse. You go back to the state of unawareness you had before you were born. That's not so bad, is it?
2. Death is terrible and scary, but there's nothing you can do about it. Try not to think about it too much. Focus living instead.
3. Death is terrible and scary, but perhaps there is a way to advert it, or to reverse it. Let's get everyone signed up for cryonics!
If you can live with any of the above, you don't need to lie to yourself about what happens when you die.
Post by: alway on August 01, 2012, 09:45:37 pm
I don't fear death, I fear not living; my dopamine receptors tell me I happen to like living, and so I do. Though none of this is even getting into the somewhat misleading term of 'I,' which incorrectly gives the attributes of continuity and static existence to consciousness. The 'I' of 10 years ago no longer exists, and in fact is more different from me than even my peers today. What happens when 'I' die?
I'll let 'I' of 10 years ago tell you:
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 01, 2012, 09:55:46 pm
metalslimeThis is explicitly a discussion thread. Stating your opinion in such a place is tantamount to asking for it to be disputed by someone else.
I felt like there was some frustration and maybe even defensiveness in your post. I am sorry if I have caused offence, I was merely stating an opinion. I can't help feeling like you are telling me I shouldn't believe what I believe because you believe something else which you hold to be self evident and superior.
Quote
If faith is such an illegitimate concept, how do you justify your own faith that your subjective perception of the world is the only correct one?I do not have faith that my subjective perception of the world is the only correct one. This is why I seek out the subjective experiences of other humans to determine if I am delusional or not. More importantly, I pay attention to what objective quantifiers of reality do exist and attempt to create as much congruence between my subjective perception and objective reality as possible, so that I can avoid falsehood and give my viewpoint as much legitimacy as possible.
Quote
The sarcasm isn't necessary, and you misunderstood me anyway. When I say "what is true" I refer to the actual reality of dying and ceasing to exist as a conscious entity, not what that actually feels like in a sensory manner. There are, however, people who do know what that is like. Lots of people have clinically died and then been revived.So what is true? I hadn't realised that someone out there knew what it was like to die, forgive my naive assumptions. I am very excited to hear the truth, please supply it as soon as is convenient. Making people feel better about uncertainty is in my opinion an acceptable way to deal with not knowing the truth in the interim while you investigate it. Luckily I won't need an interim solution once you reply with the truth.Death is a big one for example...It isn't about making anyone feel better, it's about what is true. And not everyone wants to feel peace and serenity when they die, quit imposing your feelings on everyone else.
Quote
I am not sure what the difference is between moral framework and societal conscience. They seem to be roughly synonymous. Saying morality has nothing to do with spirituality is just denial of a huge body of evidence. In theory it does seem possible to design a system of morality that is not based on any form of spirituality but this is not the norm.
Legitimate morality has nothing to do with spirituality. Arbitrary moral guidelines generally imposed by religion are a constraint on society, not a benefit to it. There are a great many moral systems that are not based upon religion. Utlitarianism, secular humanism, everything on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion), etc.
Quote
Catholic cultures generally dissaprove of abortion, many islamic cultures disaprove of women showing their heads or driving cars. I could list examples of morality influenced by religion for many many pages, and I find very few examples of moral rules that have not occurred in and been implemented as a result of religious texts.Moral rules that have nothing to do with religion are the only ones that really matter. The ones that do are arbitrary and holding us back.
Quote
I will admit the rape example was a bad one. You didn't however address the main point of the quote, which was that Science does not describe any specific values or morals without first having specific goals.
Quote
Your counter argument seems to be mostly semantic. "D. Problem never existed in the first place." Actually it did, for thousands of years. Now we have overpopulation, perhaps legalising murder is a better example. It would be expedient to reduce population numbers.I already addressed why we can't legalize murder. Do you want to be murdered? You've said you're afraid of dying, so I can safely assume the answer is no. Very few people want to be murdered, in fact. Therefore, it follows that by the norm of reciprocity we should not allow murder.
Murder is definitely not a solution to overpopulation. Decreasing the population is not a solution to overpopulation. The real target to decrease overpopulation is the rate of population growth, which naturally slows and reaches equilibrium in fully industrialized societies with easy access to effective method of birth control. More importantly, that doesn't involve murdering anyone, thereby making it a superior solution to global mass murder.
The growth of the human population was not a problem for thousands of years, either. We wouldn't be a very successful organism if we had to take special and drastic action to maintain our own population. The human population will not naturally collapse without some horrific catastrophe killing lots of us at one time.
Quote
This is fascinating, please tell me in detail about your moral framework and the scientific/rational reasons behind each part of it. You can use pm if you feel that it is outside the scope of this thread but I think it could be argued that it is relevant.
You would have to give me an example to react to.
Quote
Again a semantic argument. I thought it was clear what I meant but I am often guilty of ambiguity in text so I apologies for it.Let me try again:Some people feel the need for purpose. I do not. We have no true purpose, and that is alright.
Purpose. This is the big one, people feel the need for a purpose.
Quote
No, one is self delusion the other is pretending. I play computer games, are you implying that when I play eve online I am deluding myself that I am actually flying space ships? Sure synthesising faith is a little stronger than your every day pretending, but it is only different in magnitude. It is called the willing suspension of disbelief sometimes. Also with regard to searching for actual answers: A) I was talking about things that are unknowable and unverifiable, I consider it a waste of time to search for actual answers to these. B) Even if I were proposing inventing beliefs about things that may one day be definitively answered (I guess I was, it is theoretically possible that one day we may understand neurology well enough to answer some of these issues), there is no part of believing something that necessarily precludes me from learning more about it. I read about the neurochemistry of death for example, the breakdown of bodily functions, I am fascinated by medicine. If a new study came out that quantified in perfect detail the entire subjective experience of dying I would avidly read it and incorporate it into my beliefs. Maybe you are unable to accept new information once you have formed a belief, and are projecting. My beliefs change on an hourly basis. They have to I get bored with them after a while.If you're just pretending, then you don't really believe any of it, now do you?
Quote
This is a hard one to tackle. I maintain that everyone is in fact afraid of death. Well the vast majority. Coming to terms with the scientific explanation of death does no change that for most people.That most people are determined to remain in denial until they actually die does not change that some of us do not.
Quote
You can test if you are afraid of death, just put yourself in a dangerous situation and see if you feel fear. Bungee jumping is one way to do this without any actual risk. If you feel fear, that is usually the fear of death.In bungee jumping you are leaping off of a structure. Adrenal rush would override any legitimate emotional state.
Quote
The fact that people are afraid of death is some evidence though, as there is no scientific or rational reason for this fear. Death is inevitable and therefore to fear it, especially if it is really only a nullification of consciousness, is not rational. I think it is widely accepted that people are afraid of death. If you can cite evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.The reason is that they become obsessed with living and fear what will happen when that state comes to an end. It is not healthy, but healthy mental attitudes are a minority amongst people.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 03:59:55 am
That might work for you, but I can't make stuff up and pretend it's real because it makes me feel good.As we're talking about stuff we have no knowledge of and thus every conclusion is equally baseless, would you prefer to come to an arbitrary conclusion due to it making you feel bad? Or you just going by gut feeling? Or do you come to no conclusion at all, and wipe the question away as pointless?
Some people base their belief on wishful thinking, and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. You don't bet on the horse you want to lose. That doesn't mean it's anything other than wishful thinking though, of course.
Quote
As for solipsism, the question of whether or not reality is a perfect illusion is about as valuable as the question of whether or not there's an invisible, intangible leprechaun on my shoulder. If it looks like an apple, feels like an apple, tastes like an apple, and has the same nutritional content as an apple, it's an apple. There's no meaningful difference between an apple and an illusion that functions identically to an apple.Agreed, but note that this requires a rather existentialist position. There is a meaningful difference between an imaginary and real apple to one who believes in objective value.
It's even more important when throwing morality into the mix; there is an EXTREME difference between an imaginary person and a real one, and it would take a 100% selfish consequentialist value system to argue otherwise (or a virtue ethics one, I suppose, which would fit nicely with all those "life is a test" religious theories if one assumes their reality isn't shared with others).
I like you. :DSpeaking of unfalsifiable, since every religion is unfalsifiable and therefore all of the gods / spirits / etc may exist, we should convert to every religion at once!
I tried that once, it was a lot of fun but not really sustainable and very confusing
Post by: Graknorke on August 02, 2012, 04:19:11 am
Also, I would say that a perfectly simulated virtual person would be as valuable as a real one. Assuming they thought like a human being, including emotional states, instinctive responses like fear and reflexes along with a perfetly represented system of sensory inputs like a human's, then why would it be any les valubable than an actual human?
Unless you mean just a person imagined by another person, but then there are some mental conditions where somebody can have two distinct people as part of them, with different opinions, beiliefs etc. Are you saying that one of them should be written off as less valuable and imaginary and so be subdued with drug treatment or something?
(Any typoes are ebecause of the delayed reactions on this tabet keyboard. It's like a regular keyboard but slots into the bottom. Thing is it has soeme delay between pressing the keys and e tablet recognising it, so some keystrokes get missed. Mostly a problem with backsapaces. So sorry about that.)
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 04:41:04 am
Well, I don't kneow about others, but I would hope that the horse I bet on would win, not the other way around. Or I would bet on the horese that was most likely to win. But it would otherwise just be a horse I picked because of some whimsical thing because I never make very substancial bets and so it's mostly just a thing I do for the Grand National for a laugh. Even then, I DO want the horse I bet on to win, because wanting it to lose would be silly. Of course, I EXPECT it to lose, because I'm bad at picking horses. I had no idea on which would win or even be any better t winning, I just pick a horse and then hope it will win.I'm willing to bet a lot of people think like you, even if they don't realize it :)
Quote
Also, I would say that a perfectly simulated virtual person would be as valuable as a real one. Assuming they thought like a human being, including emotional states, instinctive responses like fear and reflexes along with a perfetly represented system of sensory inputs like a human's, then why would it be any les valubable than an actual human?Ehh, now we're getting into the morality of AI and stuff like that. I see where you're coming from and don't necessarily disagree, but this is something that's still in my "maybe" pile. I'll take a contrarian position anyway for the sake of argument, though.
Unless you mean just a person imagined by another person, but then there are some mental conditions where somebody can have two distinct people as part of them, with different opinions, beiliefs etc. Are you saying that one of them should be written off as less valuable and imaginary and so be subdued with drug treatment or something?
Two ways around it:
1) Dualism. If you believe what makes us "people" to be a soul or something like that, then the illusionary person (or AI, or whatever) is not, in fact, a person, because they lack that intrinsic supernatural element.
2) If you don't go with dualism, an illusion might still not have all the necessary parts for personhood. An NPC in a video game can emulate a person, but is not self aware, thus "doesn't count" (assuming self-awareness is one of your criteria for personhood, anyway). So the illusion could emulate a person, but lack some of the criteria necessary, and still fool you. (EDIT: Man, I sound like the villain in some sci fi novel.)
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 05:19:02 am
If you're just pretending, then you don't really believe any of it, now do you?That's not how it works. You can choose to believe. Even worse: if you did not choose to believe, you believe blindly, and just retrofit arguments to fit your belief. And, to take your exam-example: I could believe I passed, and start partying, or believe I don't know, and fret about it. Given those two options, I chose the first.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 05:29:35 am
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we fail our exams!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 05:44:56 am
I choose to believe your entire argument is invalid, then. This discussion is now over, I win.If you're just pretending, then you don't really believe any of it, now do you?That's not how it works. You can choose to believe. Even worse: if you did not choose to believe, you believe blindly, and just retrofit arguments to fit your belief.
Anyway, you've got it totally backwards. If you've chosen to believe something is true, then you will be the one retrofitting arguments and what evidence you accept to fit. Take creationists, for example. They start with the solution, the belief, that being that God created the Universe in six days 6000 years ago, and try to find anything that they can twist into fitting that idea while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Not choosing to believe, but instead starting with evidence and believing the most likely outcome of that evidence regardless of your personal feelings on it, that is the way to avoid blind belief in things.
Quote
And, to take your exam-example: I could believe I passed, and start partying, or believe I don't know, and fret about it. Given those two options, I chose the first....Not my example?
That's not a matter of belief anyway. You don't know if you passed or not until you see the results. That is simple factual information.
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 06:10:13 am
Not choosing to believe, but instead starting with evidence and believing the most likely outcome of that evidence regardless of your personal feelings on it, that is the way to avoid blind belief in things.Oh wait, one step back. Statement/Definition time: Everyone believes in Something. Even if it is the scientific method, predictable results through experimentation, occams razor, or that you don't know anything for sure, is a belief. (This is not me accusing you personally here: ) Calling ones belief "the only realistic option", or "facts" and failing to see how other people could believe anything else, and calling them delusional if they do, is "blindly believing".
Quote
...Not my example?Sorry, misread quotes. Walls of textquotes made me dizzy, I guess.
That's not a matter of belief anyway. You don't know if you passed or not until you see the results. That is simple factual information.
True, you don't know it, so it is a belief, isn't it? Either I shall not pass, or I will. As it was an analogy for life/death and what happens after it, the belief in the end result will influence the way we experience the "now"; will we worry about the exams? Will we choose not to worry and let it be? Will we just assume we passed and party? Will we assume we passed, and group X did not, so we can already be condescending to them? Will we assume that we failed, but may eventually pass if we adhere to a strict number of rules compiled by someone a long time ago? Etc.
And, to get back to DefinitionTime above: Even the "I won't assume anything until it happens" is a form of belief.
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 07:40:20 am
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 07:43:35 am
Belief=/=faith.Indeed, and faith is just another belief.
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 09:03:26 am
Belief=/=faith.Indeed, and faith is just another belief.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 10:11:53 am
Looking at the horse racing analogy, I am reminded of a study I saw where they tested people who consider themselves especially lucky or unlucky. One test was a newspaper made especially for the study, subjects were asked to ascertain how many images were in the newspaper. A few pages in there was a full page ad which stated in large block letters 'there are 275 images in this newspaper'. Somewhere near the middle there was another ful page ad which stated 'show this to the researcher and he will give you $50'. Most subjects got the number of images right, the 'lucky' people almost all got the answer very quickly and the 'unlucky' people took a long time to get it. No one claimed the $50. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about this, one group of people simply had better observational skills. So statistically someone who bets on a horse they want to win and feels confident that it will win is more likely to win than someone who bets on a horse and assumes it wont win because they suck at betting. The 'lucky' person is more likely to have noticed subtle things about the horse or about it's competitors on a subjective level. While the causation might go the other way, ie. believing in nice comforting beliefs against your nature might not necessarily make you have more success or happiness, those that naturally believe in nice friendly superstitions like 'I am just a lucky person' tend to be happier and more successful.
With regard to what happens during and after death, it seems the scientific athiest types have ignored their own science on this one. When I mentioned avidly reading medical texts on the subect I actually was. 'It is just nothingness, oblivion, cessation of consciousness' is wrong. Maybe after all brain activity ceases and the brain starts to decay but no one has experienced that and reported back so we don't know. What we do know is that after your heart stops and your body shuts down brain activity can continue for several minutes. We also know that the neural chemistry changes to states which are never present in a living organism. One of the chemicals which shows up in the brain during death is dimethyltryptamine. This is a highly psychoactive psychedelic alkaloid which is associated with intense religious experiences and extreme time dilation. Many scientist believe this drug is responsible for the reported feelings of religious ecstasy and enlightenment often felt by people who have a near death experience. In order to better understand the mind and brain I have experimented with such drugs and although I have not been able to summon the courage to do a fully fledged DMT trip, I have tried some of the synthetic analogues. One thing I learned is that the state of mind, surroundings and expectations you have going into the trip have a huge effect on your subsequent experience during it. Evidence seems to suggest that when you die, in those last minutes of brain activity, you will experience a massive dmt trip which although short, may subjectively seem like hours or even years. If you go into this believing you are going to experience some kind of spiritual enlightment and approach it with serenity and joy it is likely to be one of the most beautiful and sublime experiences of your life. If you go into it with a strong and rigid belief that only facts and science contain truth and that all spirituality is bunk, you run a slight risk of having a bad trip that overwhelms you and induces fear and panic. So it is in the interests of having a good time when I die and based on scientific evidence that I can affect what my experience of death is like that I choose to believe it is going to be awesome and mystical.
Metalslime you choose to believe that I am wrong and that you have won the argument, and for you this is true. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your resounding victory. You say that faith is an illegitimate concept but human beings are subjective. No human being ever had an objective thought or experience. I am not saying your beliefs are wrong. I am merely saying you chose them just as I chose mine. If you like yours, then you should keep them. I like mine, but I also like to experiment so I will continue to change them. I think a dynamic belief system based on circumstance and whim is the most entertaining and satisfying. But that is just me.
You brought up creationism as an example. I mentioned in my first post here that many people have a corrupted view of spirituality because of the curruption of christianity and other organised religion, and you have demonstrated this. Even using the word creationist shows a significant corruption in your world view caused by the insane bible thumpers. One could believe that god created the first singularity and started the big bang, this is creationism and also just fine and not contrary to any evidence. The people you are talking about are evolution deniers. This is not the same as what I am doing at all. Denial of evolution is an absurd failure to understand very simple evidence and processes that occur every day around us. I am not doing that, I restrict my spiritual beliefs to things that there is no evidence about, and where possible, things that are unknowable and unverifiable. If you cannot see the difference between me and a fundamnetalist christian denying evolution then I don't think there is anything more we can say to each other.
A moral system that works on a case by case basis and can't be spoken about without an example is not a system as it is not systematic, it is a pragmatic and worthwhile approach for an individual but is not practical for a society in which the system has to be codified in laws before each case arises. I am curious about one specific example though which you could answer for me: A person has a system of spiritual beliefs that you consider to be wrong, these beliefs only affect the person holding them however and do not hurt anyone. Is this immoral or is it morally acceptable. Please give your rational quantification for your conclusions.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 10:22:51 am
Faith is belief without evidence.With a lot of additional waffling.
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 11:18:00 am
Blah blah blah yak yak dribble dribble dribble
Pardon me sir, but I find your excessive amounts of text positively unconvincing.
How exactly do you expect people to answer that question, Drunken? "Oh no, they're completely immoral for disagreeing with me." This is completely farcical. If someone's beliefs do not concern other people, how can it even be moral or immoral? The entire reason other religions are considered immoral is because of their attitudes towards other people, like Islam urging you to kill the infidel or Yahweh telling you to stone homosexuals.
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 11:27:31 am
Pardon me sir, but I find your excessive amounts of text positively unconvincing.
How exactly do you expect people to answer that question, Drunken? "Oh no, they're completely immoral for disagreeing with me." This is completely farcical. If someone's beliefs do not concern other people, how can it even be moral or immoral? The entire reason other religions are considered immoral is because of their attitudes towards other people, like Islam urging you to kill the infidel or Yahweh telling you to stone homosexuals.
Actually I expected him to say 'no it is fine, why would anyone care what you believe'. It was the explanation of how this conclusion is reached that interested me. Many religions do consider my beliefs to be immoral, you and I assume metalslime disagree with them. Metalsime claimed that all his moral decisions are based solely on quantified rationality. I have suggested that this is not actually the way most people form their moral framework. I did not dispute that it is possible to have a rational moral framework. I was hoping for an example of his rational morality in order to discuss this more specifically. In my view the basic point of disagreement is the question of whether faith (belief in the absence of evidence) has any value.
Also did you just disagree with me based on the fact that my post was too long, or did I misunderstand that first line?
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 01:43:53 pm
Faith is belief without evidence.Could be. "Evidence" is not adequately defined. "Waffling" is unnecessary, but the vocal minority of faithful has very large mouths. As we say, empty barrels sound the loudest.
I agree with Drunken. Making stuff up and pretending it is real is what human life is all about. I know I now run the risk of the whole "oh yeah how bout you disbelieve this brick in yo face"-argument, but I'm talking about meaning. Yes, the brick will hit me and it hurts, but does it matter? What does anything matter? I make it matter because I get angry but why would I? Am I just that basic instinct or something more? Why would we even adhere to morals or life itself? Why not kill yourself right now? One needs a basis somewhere, and I'm also curious where you base your morals? Secular Humanism? That's okay, and IMHO a really good choice, but it's just as made up as any God.
Edit: Oh hey, article just fell into my lap (http://www.thephilosophersmagazine.com/TPM/article/view/Churchland/11706). On neuroscience, philosophy, and morality.
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 02, 2012, 01:47:06 pm
Post by: Graknorke on August 02, 2012, 02:02:41 pm
Our moral systems are defined by our experiences growing up, mostly from what figures of authority such as parents tell us, or what we feel like we must think like to please a certain group. Then from there we can develop our own, from things that have happened fror us, and then ocomsidring not doing things that would result in that for anpther person, becase empathy and such.
Also I won't kill myself because of my inbuilt psychologiclal drives, all of which are either to help me or those important to me to survive. I could rationalise against them all I like but they'll probably win out in the end. It's as though you lock a starving man in a room with some poisoned food. He might be able to rsist from eating it, but eventually the base drive ofn the aquisition of food witll compell him to eat it to get rid of his hunger, overriding rtional thought. In the same way, I could try and do something to kill myself becuse I have no rational reason to exist, but unless I'm in a n emotional enough state that my findamental drives of staying saf are overwritten, then Im going to have a hard time
Also dying woudld make me miss out on the rest of the big brain-drugs party that is life, and who wants to miss that
Sorry if bits of this are illegible./typoes/poorly punctuated. Tablet with bad keyboard blah blah blah.
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 02:26:02 pm
Could we please not start with the whole "Atheists are immoral because they have no eternal torture to be afraid of" thing please?Could you please not put things like that in other people's mouths because nobody claimed that. It is not conducive to pleasant conversation and constructive discussion.
Quote
Sorry if bits of this are illegible./typoes/poorly punctuated. Tablet with bad keyboard blah blah blah.I already hate tablets for being a bad excuse for bad spelling/typing :P
But in all seriousness, you're just going with "animal instinct and peer pressure" then?
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 02:37:21 pm
Pardon me sir, but I find your excessive amounts of text positively unconvincing.
How exactly do you expect people to answer that question, Drunken? "Oh no, they're completely immoral for disagreeing with me." This is completely farcical. If someone's beliefs do not concern other people, how can it even be moral or immoral? The entire reason other religions are considered immoral is because of their attitudes towards other people, like Islam urging you to kill the infidel or Yahweh telling you to stone homosexuals.
Actually I expected him to say 'no it is fine, why would anyone care what you believe'. It was the explanation of how this conclusion is reached that interested me. Many religions do consider my beliefs to be immoral, you and I assume metalslime disagree with them. Metalsime claimed that all his moral decisions are based solely on quantified rationality. I have suggested that this is not actually the way most people form their moral framework. I did not dispute that it is possible to have a rational moral framework. I was hoping for an example of his rational morality in order to discuss this more specifically. In my view the basic point of disagreement is the question of whether faith (belief in the absence of evidence) has any value.
Also did you just disagree with me based on the fact that my post was too long, or did I misunderstand that first line?
I was pointing out that, not only are you very long winded, but you aren't terribly convincing either.
But concerning this whole "rationality as moral framework" thing. You said that the question was whether faith has any value. Short answer? No. Quite honestly, if you need to be told what to do by a God or indeed anything that cannot be proved, you don't seem to be as developed as the rest of us. Like Graknorke said, morality is hammered into us at an early age.Our parents are what keep us out of danger, and therefore we feel inclined to listen to them. This, funnily enough, also explains by so many people believe in what is very likely a load of nonsense. Because there parents told them so.
If anything, it seems faith has become detrimental. All these extremists and fundamentalists who support proposition 8 and bomb buildings are have scripture to back them up. They can quote the Bible or Koran in order to justify their acts. So it seems to me that faith is a pretty shitty moral framework.
Bottom line, unless your faith is squeaky-fucking-clean, I don't think it's gonna have much value to any of us.
And Siquo, that's what we call pseudophilosophy.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 02:54:54 pm
Could be. "Evidence" is not adequately defined. "Waffling" is unnecessary, but the vocal minority of faithful has very large mouths. As we say, empty barrels sound the loudest.That "vocal minority" includes every person who I've ever seen attempt to defend faith, present company included. I've never seen someone present an actual succint argument for faith, as opposed to several huge rambling paragraphs with no actual point.
I agree with Drunken. Making stuff up and pretending it is real is what human life is all about. I know I now run the risk of the whole "oh yeah how bout you disbelieve this brick in yo face"-argument, but I'm talking about meaning. Yes, the brick will hit me and it hurts, but does it matter? What does anything matter? I make it matter because I get angry but why would I? Am I just that basic instinct or something more? Why would we even adhere to morals or life itself? Why not kill yourself right now? One needs a basis somewhere, and I'm also curious where you base your morals? Secular Humanism? That's okay, and IMHO a really good choice, but it's just as made up as any God.Oh right, there's also blatant JAQing off. I forgot. I'll give my answers in order anyway.
1. I don't care and it's not relevant
2. I don't care and it's not relevant
3. I don't care and it's not relevant
4. I don't care and it's not relevant
5. a) "adhere to morals" Because society works far better that way and if you're nice to others others will be nicer to you b) "life itself" Doesn't make sense and isn't relevant
6. Because I enjoy life and there's no reason at all to kill myself
7. On what allows society to function and people to be happy
8. You don't know what secular humanism is
So yeah, try and make an argument. Spouting random irrelevant questions does not qualify as participating in a discussion.
Post by: Graknorke on August 02, 2012, 02:56:22 pm
Except I never said you said anythingCould we please not start with the whole "Atheists are immoral because they have no eternal torture to be afraid of" thing please?Could you please not put things like that in other people's mouths because nobody claimed that. It is not conducive to pleasant conversation and constructive discussion.
I made a erequest to the general population of the thread to not start up saying that, because the conversation was bordering dangerously close.
Anyways, religion stuff is also down to peer pressure/desire to be in a group. That's a reason for it being so widespread throughout history, it's a group with defined boundaries and everyone in it feels close through their belief that they are all special for being in it.
Post by: Grek on August 02, 2012, 03:43:55 pm
"Evidence" is not adequately defined.
Alright, let's do this. Everyone here is (or, should be, I hope) familiar with the basic idea of inductive logic. Maybe they've never heard that term before, but I'm sure they agree with the idea "The sun has come up over the horizon in the east every morning of my life. Every person I've ever asked has said that every time they've seen the sun rise, it rose in the east. Never has the sun been seen to rise in the west, north or south. Therefore, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning."
That's induction: the idea that things that have happened are indictative of things that will happen. If we approach the idea more analytically, we get three parts to induction: The "what I thought before I used induction", "what I thought after I used induction" and the "what I saw to make me use induction". Or, in more formal terms, your prior probability, your posterior probability and your evidence. Even more formally, we have the following mathmatical relationship between them:
Posterior Probability = P[Idea|Evidence] = Prior Probability * Evidence Ratio = P[Idea] * P[Evidence|Idea] / P[Evidence]
An example:
We have a room with some people in it. 25% of the people in the room are male and the rest are female. You know for a fact that 75% of the women speak French while only 50% of the men do. You're told this all in advance, and know it to be accurate. Someone slips a note through the door, written in French. What are the odds that a man wrote it?
P[French] = P[Male] * P[French|Male] + P[Female] * P[French|Female] = 68.75%
P[Male|French] = P[Male] * P[French|Male] / P[French] = 25% * 50% / 68.75% = 18.181818...% = 2/11
The evidence for a hypothesis is the ratio between the probability of what you've seen so far if the hypothesis is true and the probability of seeing what you've seen so far in general. If you're more likely to see what you've seen if the hypothesis is true than you would in general, then you should beleive that hypothesis more. And if your hypothesis suggests that you shouldn't have seen what you saw before, you should start doubting it.
So, to restate LordExumius's prior post:
Faith is belief in a hypothesis with certainty out of proportion to the ratio between how likely the world is to be how it is according to the hypothesis and how likely the world is to be like it is in general. Or, in short, "Faith is belief without evidence."
Post by: MrWiggles on August 02, 2012, 03:48:13 pm
Faith is belief in defiance of evidence.Belief=/=faith.Indeed, and faith is just another belief.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Post by: Frumple on August 02, 2012, 04:00:41 pm
With that out of the system, maybe we can drop the semantics debate that's not going to go anywhere? Please? It gets threads locked.
Anyone have an opinion of panentheism? Spinoza was a pretty cool dude, iirc. Or any of the more interesting theological concepts you're aware of, really. Maybe try to steer discussion somewhere less vitriolic and more educational.
Post by: Grek on August 02, 2012, 04:10:51 pm
Probably the most interesting point about panentheism is that, if it's true, it gives us all a factual and selfish motivation for helping others: If you and everyone else are actually just a giant space butterfly who's dreaming of being a bunch of different people, then you want the lives of all those people to be as pleasant and happy as possible so that when the giant space butterfly (who is also you) wakes up, it wakes up with happy dreams.
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 04:19:36 pm
Spinoza was a pretty cool dude, iirc.
You're 400 years old, are you?
To be honest, though, I think deism has to be a more reasonable one, too. At least it doesn't pretend to know what a god thinks.
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 04:44:06 pm
But concerning this whole "rationality as moral framework" thing. You said that the question was whether faith has any value. Short answer? No. Quite honestly, if you need to be told what to do by a God or indeed anything that cannot be proved, you don't seem to be as developed as the rest of us. Like Graknorke said, morality is hammered into us at an early age.Our parents are what keep us out of danger, and therefore we feel inclined to listen to them. This, funnily enough, also explains by so many people believe in what is very likely a load of nonsense. Because there parents told them so.
If anything, it seems faith has become detrimental. All these extremists and fundamentalists who support proposition 8 and bomb buildings are have scripture to back them up. They can quote the Bible or Koran in order to justify their acts. So it seems to me that faith is a pretty shitty moral framework.
Bottom line, unless your faith is squeaky-fucking-clean, I don't think it's gonna have much value to any of us.
Ahh the argument from personal feelings of superiority. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the difference between belief systems that justify acts of violence and oppression and what I am proposing are so far apart that they do not even belong in the same discussion. That was even the focus of my first point in this thread: the pollution of all ideas of spirituality based on the actions of the idiotic mainstream religions.
"I don't think it's gonna have much value to any of us" - I said it had value to me, it is my belief system not yours. My argument that faith can have value does not hinge upon it's value to other people in this thread, just that it has value at all. I tried to explain specifically why and how it had value to me.
I realise long posts can be hard to get though, but this is theology answers like "Short answer? No." in a discussion such as this are completely useless. To debate such a complex philosophical issue as this complex discussion is required. I understand that I am the chief culprit of recent giant posts, I will therefore simply keep my opinion to myself as having a theological discussion in the framework of office motivational poster quotes is just stupid. I don't promise to leave, I may still post the occasional point, but I will try to keep my posts down to a few lines, which means I will no longer be discussing what I consider to be the important core aspects of the topic.
Post by: LordExumius on August 02, 2012, 04:54:07 pm
But concerning this whole "rationality as moral framework" thing. You said that the question was whether faith has any value. Short answer? No. Quite honestly, if you need to be told what to do by a God or indeed anything that cannot be proved, you don't seem to be as developed as the rest of us. Like Graknorke said, morality is hammered into us at an early age.Our parents are what keep us out of danger, and therefore we feel inclined to listen to them. This, funnily enough, also explains by so many people believe in what is very likely a load of nonsense. Because there parents told them so.
If anything, it seems faith has become detrimental. All these extremists and fundamentalists who support proposition 8 and bomb buildings are have scripture to back them up. They can quote the Bible or Koran in order to justify their acts. So it seems to me that faith is a pretty shitty moral framework.
Bottom line, unless your faith is squeaky-fucking-clean, I don't think it's gonna have much value to any of us.
Ahh the argument from personal feelings of superiority. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the difference between belief systems that justify acts of violence and oppression and what I am proposing are so far apart that they do not even belong in the same discussion. That was even the focus of my first point in this thread: the pollution of all ideas of spirituality based on the actions of the idiotic mainstream religions.
"I don't think it's gonna have much value to any of us" - I said it had value to me, it is my belief system not yours. My argument that faith can have value does not hinge upon it's value to other people in this thread, just that it has value at all. I tried to explain specifically why and how it had value to me.
I realise long posts can be hard to get though, but this is theology answers like "Short answer? No." in a discussion such as this are completely useless. To debate such a complex philosophical issue as this complex discussion is required. I understand that I am the chief culprit of recent giant posts, I will therefore simply keep my opinion to myself as having a theological discussion in the framework of office motivational poster quotes is just stupid. I don't promise to leave, I may still post the occasional point, but I will try to keep my posts down to a few lines, which means I will no longer be discussing what I consider to be the important core aspects of the topic.
To be fair, though, nothing you have said here has not been said better elsewhere, so really, we won't be missing much. Now the same could also be said of me, and this why I think discussions like these are circular and pointless. My entire approach to this thread has been cynical, because I realise that nobody on either side is going to change their views.
*Sigh* maybe I'm just bitter from my previous discussions on the topic.
Post by: Siquo on August 02, 2012, 05:05:58 pm
Thank you for a really good definition of evidence. Agreement on semantics is important before you can even begin to communicate. So, taking your definition, one of my arguments is already down the drain (as a single experience with a very low prior and posterior probability (Act of God/Divine intervention/etc) is not eligible) ;)"Evidence" is not adequately defined.
Alright, let's do this.
On to belief on/in evidence: Is there evidence of that kind for every little thing one believes in? Is there evidence for "good" or "bad"? I mean, how can one maintain that all he believes in is evidence based, and still use words like "good" and "bad"?
I'm not arguing for the existence of a God here, nor that a God is necessary for morality (I'm a deist, and believe in a primal-mover kind of god I guess, but make my own morality), merely that it cannot be found in "evidence". Taken with LordExumius' statement, that means that anyone who has even the slightest belief in that things can be good or bad, has faith. It's not such a dirty word.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 02, 2012, 05:09:46 pm
If so, what makes it different? If it is the same, then what is it about it that makes people who hold it take the view that it can not be challenged?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 02, 2012, 05:13:20 pm
Post by: Reudh on August 02, 2012, 05:23:50 pm
Tim Minchin's Storm: The Animated Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U)
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 02, 2012, 05:27:13 pm
Religious faith: Considering true things that can not be proven to be true. Whilst they can not directly be proven to be untrue, this is often due to the nature of the postulation. Often alternative testable explanations are given that are at times rejected by those holding certain religious faiths.
General faith: Choosing to believe that an outcome/event is probable to occur, with or without consideration of all relevant information that could be used to inform such a choice. Often the faith will be directed towards situations which the outcome is uncertain.
Having reread those, they dont seem too different to me... ???
Whilst anyone is capable of holding generalized faith (and to be hurt or elated when things do or dont go thier way for whatever reason), I think religious fiath is something that many people (myself included) find hard to understand - especially those of us that have been trained (for whatever reason) to think in a particular way. Dont get me wrong - I respect those who can have faith, even if I do not agree with thier views, apart from in extreme circumstances. Possibly the lack of an obvious outcome on an individual level, discounting any aspects that have an influence on an individuals personality or behaviour, which faith of any form clearly has no monopoly on.
Edit: nice quote from Hawking:
Quote
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.
Post by: Grek on August 02, 2012, 05:43:43 pm
On to belief on/in evidence: Is there evidence of that kind for every little thing one believes in? Is there evidence for "good" or "bad"? I mean, how can one maintain that all he believes in is evidence based, and still use words like "good" and "bad"?
Evidence only has to do with the state of the world and the things in it. There is evidence for and against every single physical fact of the universe, including facts like "what does X think about Y?", since that's really just a question about what X's brain is up to. Alot of the things we have "beliefs" about are abstract concepts - things that don't actually exist anywhere in the physical world. Our brains behave like they do, because we didn't evolve originally to handle abstract questions like that. Instead, our brains co-opt the original answering-questions-of-fact-about-the-world-in-time-to-not-get-eaten-by-lions brain circuitry to consider abstract questions. And the brain does so by treating abtractions like they were physical things in the universe that we could get evidence about and form proper beliefs on.
So, to answer the main question: It depends on what exactly you mean by good and bad. Without a perspective to define good vs. bad from (and a defintion of whether you mean "right vs. wrong" or "preferable vs. not preferable" or something else entirely), there's no way to say whether something is good or bad or neither. There's no objective Good that exists outside of someone's mind for us to examine and get evidence about. Instead, you have to look at people's mind and their thoughts (as inferred by the things they say and do or by introspection if you're just concerned about your own thoughts) in order to get a grasp on what they think good and bad are. Since there isn't an objective Good or objective Bad anywhere to look at, those mental perspectives are the only things that the words 'good' and 'bad' could be talking about.
If you mean it in terms of preference, ie. "good" is whatever is preferable to "bad", then, you can only have evidence for what is good and what is bad respective to a given person's preferences, or toward any set of average preferences you want, subject to constraints like Arrow's Theorem and so forth. At least assuming all the preferences involved are well defined and not self-contradicting. And if you mean it in terms of "right" and "wrong", then you can have evidence about "right according to X" and "wrong according to X" where X is a person's morals, or a moral code of some sort, but those are really just fancy special cases of preference. I wouldn't really qualify either one as a proper belief, at least not in the sense used in "is there evidence for belief X?". It's certainly something that people think, and something they profess, but it's not something they think about the world, so much as something they think about their own minds and whatever else it is that defines their morality.
Of course, none of that is to say that there's no point in studying morality and ethics - people's minds have shockingly large amounts of agreement about what is good and what is bad once you get down to the brass tacks, so to speak. It's just that these are questions of psychology and cognitive science, not of simple and obvious fact like the apparent location of the Sun at dawn is. Minds are confusing, so morality, being a question about the mind, is also confusing.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 05:44:47 pm
On to belief on/in evidence: Is there evidence of that kind for every little thing one believes in? Is there evidence for "good" or "bad"? I mean, how can one maintain that all he believes in is evidence based, and still use words like "good" and "bad"?"Good" and "bad" are social constructs, corresponding loosely to positive and negative emotions respectively. A "good" thing is broadly speaking something that will cause positive emotions to be felt or prevent negative emotions from being felt, with "bad" being the opposite. Obviously it gets more complicated than that, but that's pretty much the core of the issue.
As they are defined in this way they're not exactly claims about the universe - rather words we can use to describe objects or actions in terms of the positive or negative emotions they cause or embody (in general). I'd want evidence of any particular statement involving the word "good" before believing it, but a word on its own is not a statement about how the universe is and does not require any evidence.
I mean, you might as well argue there's no evidence for "hard", "black", "fluffy" or "happy". It's true because they're not statements and thus cannot make any testable predictions, but it's not a sensible question because they're descriptive words which we understand the meaning of.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 06:08:56 pm
A metaphysics philosopher could probably provide "evidence" for concepts such as "good" "bad" or whatever, provided you give them some premises to build on. I'm definitely not qualified to do that, lacking sufficient armchair philosophy time.
Post by: i2amroy on August 02, 2012, 06:31:03 pm
trying to apply a definition to good and bad?If we take good and bad as the way that Leafsnail pointed them out (i.e. "good" as something that will cause positive emotions or prevent negative emotions, and "bad" as something that causes negative emotions or prevents positive ones), then the only difference in that scenario between the dictator and the person being executed for speaking out's world-views is the weight of the self in both of them.
do you think dictators that had people killed for speaking out thought they were bad?
good and bad are down to the individual. some will think X is good, others will think it's bad.
In the case of the person speaking out:
From person's perspective: Possible benefit to others (+10), possibility of harm to self (-5); 0+10-5=5 (good)
From dictator's perspective: Possibility of harm to self (-10), possible benefit to others (+2); 0-10+2=-8 (bad)
The dictator is weighing the potential harm to themselves (through country destabilization, rebellion, or questioning of their power), against the harm that could be done to them by having the other person killed. The person who speaks out is weighing the good of everyone regaining their rights against the chance of themselves being harmed for speaking out.
In both cases they are using the same definition of good and bad, it's just that in the person's view the "other" is more important then the "self", where as in the dictators view the "self" is more important then the "other".
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 06:35:19 pm
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 02, 2012, 06:59:20 pm
trying to apply a definition to good and bad?
do you think dictators that had people killed for speaking out thought they were bad?
good and bad are down to the individual. some will think X is good, others will think it's bad.
How about doing things that are a net benefit to people is good, doing things that are harmful is bad? It's worked out well enough for me.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 07:08:54 pm
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 02, 2012, 07:25:12 pm
As for quantifying benefit, you can absolutely do it in situations where it's lives being compared to one another, with more sentients being more valuable. Since in our society, money can unfortunately be equated into saved lives, wouldn't the value of a human's life simply be the monetary value of the items necessary to keep them alive and productive their entire remaining life(or expected life), plus the amount they will produce over their lifespan? If fifty million dollars will sustain 20 families for their entire lives, then it should be right to kill someone who doesn't produce anything for society for that amount of money.(Assuming that the murderer donates all the money to those families) Ultimately, more productive lives with a decent standard of living is better.
Post by: Drunken on August 02, 2012, 07:41:39 pm
As for quantifying benefit, you can absolutely do it in situations where...
Only in relation to certain goals or values which are taken as axioms. In your example a human dying is taken as a cost, or as a bad thing, and productivity is taken as a good thing. These are both axiomatic value judgements, and dependent on a specific subjective system of value that is not necessarily universal. I don't even agree that productivity in and of itself is a good thing. How do you deal with someone who builds weapons for example, if I build 50 million worth of weapons which are subsequently used to kill 20 families, is my net contribution 0? Productivity being a good thing is dependent on society at large having a goal that all people are contributing towards. There is no such goal.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 07:46:30 pm
Intent doesn't really make sense as a basis for ethics. If I do something that will result in someone's death, and I am aware of that, but I do it because I want some material gain, is that wrong, even though my intent is not for the person to die? Morality should be based on what you expect will happen, as opposed to your reasons for doing something.A virtue ethics supporter would look at all their thought process, not just their desired end goal, to judge them. So they'd say that was immoral due to them not valuing a person's life over material gain. Finding a person's life an acceptable cost is part of their intent, and thus can be ethically judged.
EDIT: I'll rant about it since it's my view:
Virtue ethics takes all morality out of actions themselves, and instead places moral responsibility entire on a person's character (or their "virtues"). A person's actions are not inherently good or bad, but by observing their actions, you can see evidence of their inner character, and thus judge their morality.
So, a virtue ethics supporter would not see a difference between attempted murder and murder. The inner character of the person who attempted it is the same, but in one situation, something got in their way and prevented their goal. That outside influence should not have an effect on how they are judged.
The problem with this moral theory is defining the virtues that should be espoused. What is considered a "good" inner character to one person could be a "bad" inner character to another. As I'm a supporter of subjective morality, this isn't a problem to me, since we can then all decide what virtues are good for us (as that's what we do anyway).
Quote
As for quantifying benefit, you can absolutely do it in situations where it's lives being compared to one another, with more sentients being more valuable. Since in our society, money can unfortunately be equated into saved lives, wouldn't the value of a human's life simply be the monetary value of the items necessary to keep them alive and productive their entire remaining life(or expected life), plus the amount they will produce over their lifespan? If fifty million dollars will sustain 20 families for their entire lives, then it should be right to kill someone who doesn't produce anything for society for that amount of money.(Assuming that the murderer donates all the money to those families) Ultimately, more productive lives with a decent standard of living is better.Thing is, you'll never find a set scale that everyone agrees on. You'll come up with wacky stuff like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus) Utilitarians don't really have a problem with that, but supporters of other ethical theories will scoff.
I mentioned deontology before, so I'll expound on what they think too: Morality is entirely action based and objective. Stealing is stealing, essentially. So taking a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family would not justify the theft; they're still guilty of it no matter their intent, no matter the consequence.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 02, 2012, 07:51:23 pm
And kaijyuu, I'm not saying you can compare any action to any other action. I'm just saying that most of what we value in society can be equated to human lives, and any two random people, if you don't have any opportunity to learn anything about them, are equal in value.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 08:14:04 pm
This is perhaps the most common criticism of utilitarianism. Suppose there was a situation where you could make 1 (or a small number) of people miserable, but by doing so you make an extremely large number of people very happy. Is that better than having everyone just content?
Historical example: Eugenics. There are quite a few disabilities passed on by genetics. Eugenics supporters wanted to sterilize these people so future generations would no longer have these diseases. They were not killed (well except for the extremist eugenics supporters that went with criteria such as race, but let's ignore those for now), just prevented from having children. We as a society deemed this unacceptable, despite it meaning there will continue to be incurable genetic diseases, and despite the cost being (relatively) small.
I get where you're coming from, and yeah I agree that you can "weigh" consideration for people. I'd rather 1 person die than 5. But I don't think it's the only thing to consider.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 02, 2012, 08:16:50 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 02, 2012, 08:30:36 pm
Alright let's throw some into the mix: Objective morality. Whatever theory you espouse, you can decide of morality can be objectively determined, or if it's just stuff we arbitrarily define.
Theists are often supporters of objective morality because they then have an authority on the subject. X is bad because God says so. Combined with all the other random things we've discussed in this thread, there are some obvious problems here: As religions are unfalsifiable (or at least the reasonable ones are), appealing to the authority of God doesn't hold weight to people who do not share the same belief in God. Yet people still try to shove it down other's throats (see: homosexuality).
I dunno if I'm actually attacking the opinion of anyone here, though. Any theists who claim God is an authority of morality want to speak up, and why (or why not) a follower has the right to claim that view on morality is the Right Choice for everyone?
Post by: alway on August 02, 2012, 08:53:34 pm
Post by: Mrhappyface on August 02, 2012, 11:02:01 pm
Post by: Siquo on August 03, 2012, 03:01:52 am
I dunno if I'm actually attacking the opinion of anyone here, though. Any theists who claim God is an authority of morality want to speak up, and why (or why not) a follower has the right to claim that view on morality is the Right Choice for everyone?Nope, sorry. Just brought it up to show that morality is not evidence-based and it's therefore impossible to have worldview ("belief") entirely based on evidence, and still have morals. This doesn't mean a "god" or supernatural thing needs to exist in order for morals to exist, but a belief in something without basis does.
For instance, I believe (amongst other things) that the human race's purpose is to continue existing (creating an AI counts), and try to base my actions and morals on long-term human survival. I changed my actions a lot but the base is not (for instance, communism/cooperation is more effective, but capitalism/competition is more resilient, so I changed my views on that, without changing my belief). This is a baseless belief, as the importance I give to the inferred survival-traits of our genome is completely made-up.
They know The TruthTM and so it is their duty to push it on you for your own good.Ah, but don't we all? Murder and rape is bad, generosity and kindness are good? And if you don't think so (and act upon it), we'll throw you in jail. Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye? (aka it's easy to judge others but make sure you're not guilty of the same)
As I'm now comparing judging a murderer to prison sentence with the stoning of a homosexual, let me elaborate: They are both judgments against a crime, where the crime is committed against the morals of that group.
In other words, you can't really blame other people for zealously trying to push their version of The TruthTM on you, if you support doing the same thing but just with your own version of The TruthTM. What you can do is attack that "Truth", and please do. And then there's a lot of The Truth's out there that reward you for trying to push the The Truth on other people, thereby becoming self-replicating memes. You can't really blame people for the beliefs they have, but you can blame the beliefs. Compare: "You're stupid for believing in X" vs "X does not exist".
Post by: Grek on August 03, 2012, 04:20:06 am
Morals arise out of applying game theory (the CogSci discipline of trying to model other people and figure out what they'll do so you can decide what is best for you to do based on their expected future actions) and coming to a cooperative or altruistic strategy, where you do things to make other people happy on the expectation that they'll reciprocate in order to get you to continue doing that. It also leads to ideas like a Hobbesian mandate for justice, where you punish criminals and evil-doers in order to discourage them from hurting people in general and thus from hurting you in particular.
Preference utilitarianism makes no attempt to justify your preferences, or to modify them. It simply attempts to discover them, based on evidence, and goes from there. There's no moral judgement about your preferences, only about specific actions given your preferences. There's no belief involved about why you "should" have a preference for one thing or another or whether or not a preference is "justified", only about whether or not you happen to have a given preference and, if you get into evolutionary psychology, why you evolved to have that preference.
Admittedly, this is all alot more work than just declaring, "I believe moral commandment X because I want to.", but I think that ethics is worth the extra effort.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 09:20:14 am
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2012, 09:27:26 am
Post by: Cthulhu on August 03, 2012, 09:32:57 am
Morality is irrelevant to atheism or theology? ???
Alright let's throw some into the mix: Objective morality. Whatever theory you espouse, you can decide of morality can be objectively determined, or if it's just stuff we arbitrarily define.
Theists are often supporters of objective morality because they then have an authority on the subject. X is bad because God says so. Combined with all the other random things we've discussed in this thread, there are some obvious problems here: As religions are unfalsifiable (or at least the reasonable ones are), appealing to the authority of God doesn't hold weight to people who do not share the same belief in God. Yet people still try to shove it down other's throats (see: homosexuality).
I dunno if I'm actually attacking the opinion of anyone here, though. Any theists who claim God is an authority of morality want to speak up, and why (or why not) a follower has the right to claim that view on morality is the Right Choice for everyone?
Morality is subjective. I have a feeling everyone knows that deep down, but some people just haven't done the mental aerobics to make it clear. Most Christians I've seen believe sometimes killing people is justified.
This is what I use to demonstrate to people who claim morality is objective:
Killing lesser animals for food is NOT immoral.
Killing humans for food IS immoral, no matter how hungry you are.
<Most objective moralists will agree with these two assumptions. If you got the one vegan/cannibal objective moralist, tough luck son>
What happens if an alien, so advanced it can't meaningfully communicate with us, and sees us as lesser animals, comes down to Earth. It's starving, so it starts killing and eating humans.
If its actions are moral, then morality is subjective. What's immoral to us is moral to others.
If its actions are immoral, then either morality is subjective or you need to stop killing and eating lesser animals for food.
Post by: SealyStar on August 03, 2012, 10:12:08 am
Post by: Siquo on August 03, 2012, 10:17:13 am
I'd probably be classified as an agnostic, maybe an ignostic. I'm going to avoid posting on this thread a lot, mainly because it would be hypocritical. I've fallen into the middle path, so to speak, because I'm fucking tired of both atheists and religious people shoving their beliefs down their throat, then claiming either "science" or "faith" proves that only their viewpoint, and no other, can possibly be true. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a god or similar figure, despite the shit I hear on both sides, so why the fuck should I care?Hide! It's a fundi agnostic! He may or may not have a bomb-belt! :)
Post by: SealyStar on August 03, 2012, 10:30:47 am
I'd probably be classified as an agnostic, maybe an ignostic. I'm going to avoid posting on this thread a lot, mainly because it would be hypocritical. I've fallen into the middle path, so to speak, because I'm fucking tired of both atheists and religious people shoving their beliefs down their throat, then claiming either "science" or "faith" proves that only their viewpoint, and no other, can possibly be true. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a god or similar figure, despite the shit I hear on both sides, so why the fuck should I care?Hide! It's a fundi agnostic! He may or may not have a bomb-belt! :)
Eh, that's probably how you see me, but seriously, I'm easily pissed off.
Post by: Siquo on August 03, 2012, 10:32:57 am
Don't kill me! I'm 99% in agreement with you!Hide! It's a fundi agnostic! He may or may not have a bomb-belt! :)
Eh, that's probably how you see me, but seriously, I'm easily pissed off.
Post by: Hiiri on August 03, 2012, 10:34:57 am
I've never been a fan of "karmic balance" moral systems. If you only do stuff in the hopes of getting things in return, I really don't find that at all worthy of respect.
I've got news for you, everything you do is for your own good. If an action doesn't directly or indirectly benefit you, you wouldn't do it.
There are plenty of situations too where you have the opportunity to extend an altruistic hand, but know for certain you'll get absolutely squat in return.
Such as?
Quote from: SealyStar
There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a god or similar figure, despite the shit I hear on both sides, so why the fuck should I care?
Oh hey, I'm easily pissed off too. When the fuck did you hear an atheist claim to be able to disprove gods? Or is this just something you heard the other people say?
Post by: SealyStar on August 03, 2012, 10:37:41 am
Oh hey, I'm easily pissed off too. When the fuck did you hear an atheist claim to be able to disprove gods? Or is this just something you heard the other people say?
Oh, I've heard this one a lot. If you haven't, I'm expressing solidarity with you. I've met atheists who constantly quip about "scientific proof" against the existence of god. I understand not all atheists are like this, but most I've met are.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 11:24:24 am
I've never been a fan of "karmic balance" moral systems. If you only do stuff in the hopes of getting things in return, I really don't find that at all worthy of respect.I've got news for you, everything you do is for your own good. If an action doesn't directly or indirectly benefit you, you wouldn't do it.
Oh? What about organ donors? Is getting an organ cut out really worth that warm fuzzy feeling? Or in the case of heart/lungs/other essential organs, you'll be dead. It will have absolutely no effect on you, so why do people do it? And teachers? They're horribly paid, in the US at least, but they spend the same amount of time getting an education as many much higher paying jobs.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 11:26:38 am
Oh hey, I'm easily pissed off too. When the fuck did you hear an atheist claim to be able to disprove gods? Or is this just something you heard the other people say?
Oh, I've heard this one a lot. If you haven't, I'm expressing solidarity with you. I've met atheists who constantly quip about "scientific proof" against the existence of god. I understand not all atheists are like this, but most I've met are.
I've never met anyone who stated anything of the sort. Atheists assume god doesn't exist because they don't see any valid evidence. It's Russel's Teapot: just because you don't know it's not there doesn't mean believing it's there is a logical thing to do.
Post by: Hiiri on August 03, 2012, 11:57:44 am
Oh? What about organ donors? Is getting an organ cut out really worth that warm fuzzy feeling? Or in the case of heart/lungs/other essential organs, you'll be dead. It will have absolutely no effect on you, so why do people do it?
Would you rather live in a world where people donate organs or in a world where people do not? In which world would you feel more safe/comfortable living in? I'd say the former. Naturally, if we wish to live in that world, we must donate organs.
Heart/lung transplant isn't all that different. Also, if you're dying, your death might not be as emotionally painful to you, knowing the pieces of your body will save another life. Again, a selfish motivation to do it.
(Of course, I cannot know the true motivations of people, but I'm willing to say everything has a selfish cause in the end.)
Empathy isn't just for some "warm fuzzy feeling", it's a way to make the world a better place for you to live in.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 12:05:48 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 12:14:34 pm
I've never been a fan of "karmic balance" moral systems. If you only do stuff in the hopes of getting things in return, I really don't find that at all worthy of respect. There are plenty of situations too where you have the opportunity to extend an altruistic hand, but know for certain you'll get absolutely squat in return. Any karmic justification falls flat in encouraging performing the act of altruism.I see a much bigger problem with believing in that kind of system: it means you can dismiss people who are worse off than you as bad people who deserve their lot in life. It strikes me as a general problem with believing in an interventive god - justifying the world as it is because hey, that's clearly how god wanted it.
Post by: Hiiri on August 03, 2012, 12:33:00 pm
My donating organs won't help me in any way. The act of donating organs isn't going to inspire anyone else to do it. You could just as easily pretend you were signed up to donate organs when you die and tell other people they should too. Believe it or not, there are people who simply care about others.
Not helping you in any way? Think again. If your organs failed tomorrow, where would you find replacements? In society in which people donate organs, or the one where people do not?
It's not about inspiration, it's an act of solidarity. Treat people as you wish to be treated yourself. Believe it or not, I care about people too. I just acknowledge that in the end it originates from our selfish desires.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 12:55:48 pm
Post by: Grek on August 03, 2012, 02:35:15 pm
If not, why haven't you? If it's so clear cut that the best option regarding organ donation is to lie and say you donate while secretly refusing, it should be something that you've already put into practice.
If so, how do you deal with the guilty pangs from lying to your friends and family? I assure you that most people would be uncomfortable lying about something like this, even if you personally aren't.
Note that this isn't meant as a personal attack; answering the relevant question here will probably explain to you why (most) people that want the social kuddos and warm fuzzy feeling of donating organs actually become organ donors instead of just pretending to.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 03, 2012, 03:01:51 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 04:29:59 pm
Let us say we have ten hunters. They have about a 50% chance of getting a kill on any particular day, and that is a very generous probability for hunting.
If the hunters all act individually, five of them will probably go hungry on any given day, and every once in a while all of them might. Particularly unlucky ones will end up starving to death. That is not good for the continuation of our species.
If the hunters all act collectively, the odds of any of them going hungry on any given day is very low, as even if plenty of them fail usually at least one will succeed and bring back food. The chance of death by starvation is nearly eliminated. This is good for the continuation of our species.
Thus, the lone wolf hunters die and the social hunters survive to reproduce, creating an evolutionary advantage for altruistic and social behavior.
Post by: Grek on August 03, 2012, 04:37:11 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 03, 2012, 04:38:12 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on August 03, 2012, 04:41:53 pm
Post by: Grek on August 03, 2012, 05:01:23 pm
The hunter doesn't have to enjoy cooperative hunting in order to decide to cooperate with other hunters. They just have to enjoy independent hunting + starving less than they enjoy cooperative hunting + not starving. That's a selfish motive. They're picking the option that is best for themselves. It doesn't matter that it's the same choice that's also better for society. A non-selfish motive would be joining in the cooperative hunting because you want to help the other hunters. Because you also don't want the others to starve, regardless of if you're starving or not yourself.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2012, 05:43:39 pm
If you really want to dig deep down, this is true, but not for the reasons stated by those advocating karmic balance systems (I need a better name for those).I've never been a fan of "karmic balance" moral systems. If you only do stuff in the hopes of getting things in return, I really don't find that at all worthy of respect.
I've got news for you, everything you do is for your own good. If an action doesn't directly or indirectly benefit you, you wouldn't do it.
The point of distinction is whether you do something for:
1) The possibility of getting something in return, or,
2) The warm fuzzies.
#1 is not worthy of respect in my mind, but #2 is.
Quote
Anytime you interact with an anonymous person on the internet you'll never see again. That's a quite common one these days. There's no reason to not be a douchebag to them since you'll never see them again... well except the desire to be a nice person instead.There are plenty of situations too where you have the opportunity to extend an altruistic hand, but know for certain you'll get absolutely squat in return.
Such as?
Here's news for YOU: The world doesn't care what you do. If you do things on principle, because "that's how I would like it," then universe isn't going to bend over backwards to reward you for it. In all likelihood, nothing will change. Your actions do not have that much effect.
People just don't often pay it forward.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 03, 2012, 05:55:01 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 03, 2012, 06:07:41 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on August 03, 2012, 11:51:56 pm
@Leafsnail: That's not what I'm saying.
The hunter doesn't have to enjoy cooperative hunting in order to decide to cooperate with other hunters. They just have to enjoy independent hunting + starving less than they enjoy cooperative hunting + not starving. That's a selfish motive. They're picking the option that is best for themselves. It doesn't matter that it's the same choice that's also better for society. A non-selfish motive would be joining in the cooperative hunting because you want to help the other hunters. Because you also don't want the others to starve, regardless of if you're starving or not yourself.
Does it even matter? Everything is selfish if you get right down to it. You wouldn't give to charity if it physically hurt you instead of mentally pleasing. We're human. We like helping others, or at least a very large portion of us do. But if you're giving to charity to make yourself feel like a good person does that make the sum any smaller? If I help someone I love because not doing so would worsen their, and my extension my own life does that make the help I gave less valid?
Post by: Grek on August 04, 2012, 12:51:40 am
Does it even matter? Everything is selfish if you get right down to it. You wouldn't give to charity if it physically hurt you instead of mentally pleasing. We're human. We like helping others, or at least a very large portion of us do. But if you're giving to charity to make yourself feel like a good person does that make the sum any smaller? If I help someone I love because not doing so would worsen their, and my extension my own life does that make the help I gave less valid?
No, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point I'm trying to make: Since there's nothing wrong with doing good deeds for selfish reasons, there's absolutely no need to accept God, or have Faith, or reject the evidence so that you can keep to some arbitrary made up moral code. You don't need God, Faith, the threat of Eternal Damnation vs. Eternal Bliss or anything like that. Just doing what makes you happy and then properly applying game theory to figure out how to get along with others is enough to become a good person. And since you don't need the theological baggage to have morality, you can strike "source of my morality" off the list of "reasons to believe in God."
Post by: Siquo on August 04, 2012, 03:38:28 pm
No, it doesn't matter. That's the whole point I'm trying to make: Since there's nothing wrong with doing good deeds for selfish reasons, there's absolutely no need to accept God, or have Faith, or reject the evidence so that you can keep to some arbitrary made up moral code. You don't need God, Faith, the threat of Eternal Damnation vs. Eternal Bliss or anything like that. Just doing what makes you happy and then properly applying game theory to figure out how to get along with others is enough to become a good person. And since you don't need the theological baggage to have morality, you can strike "source of my morality" off the list of "reasons to believe in God."You say "you" when you mean "I". There's tons of fuckwads out there who would be a lot nicer if they actually believed in a heavenly police-officer enforcing rules on them. To use an anti-god argument: If this were true, there'd be no evil in the world. Perhaps some people don't use game theory "properly", but there's a lot of people getting away with a lot of shit, so maybe you're the one not applying it properly :)
Post by: Grek on August 04, 2012, 04:40:08 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on August 04, 2012, 05:04:57 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 04, 2012, 05:19:13 pm
Post by: Siquo on August 04, 2012, 06:57:28 pm
I'm sorry, but what are you even arguing here? That atheists are, in general, fuckwads that would be better behaved if they where religious?... I'm seriously beginning to doubt whether the inquisition was reinstated. The defensiveness of people is just... Astounding. I'm not interested in making atheists look bad, and I don't think they eat babies. I didn't, when I was one, and I stopped being one for personal reasons, not a dissatisfaction with the "philosophy" itself. Time and again I'm amazed at the viciousness people display in this thread in defending their interpretation of "atheism", as if they're under continuous attack.
I'm arguing that
A. Most people aren't capable of or interested in forming their own morality through game theory as you propose and
B. Your outcome (altruism) isn't necessarily the only outcome of the process you described and
C. Evidence for this is found that people still do "evil" stuff (aka the aforementioned fuckwads, regardless of faith).
and therefore I conclude
D. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.
I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.
Post by: MrWiggles on August 04, 2012, 07:20:25 pm
I'm amazed at the viciousness people display in this thread in defending their interpretation of "atheism", as if they're under continuous attack.Least trusted minority in the US. Heck, just recently I was told I was a monster. My mom had to play host of a hostile conversation on her facebook page for posting something pro secular.
http://imgur.com/bVmdU This kinda of conversation isn't atypical.
Quote
I'm arguing thatMost folks don't need to figure out their morality or ethics in fine detail. Human tend to functional somewhat decently when we live in large interdependent groups. There even fair amount of studies to show that all humans have a baseline unconscious morality and ethics. I'd argue, simply growing up decently would make most folks pretty decently moral and ethical folks.
A. Most people aren't capable of or interested in forming their own morality through game theory as you propose and
Quote
D. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.I dont understand why 'something someone made up' is a detriment.
Quote
I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.No, no faith needed.
Post by: Grek on August 04, 2012, 07:53:01 pm
I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.
You also said a number of other things, alot of it rude. I forgive you for that, since you apparently didn't mean any of it that way, but it did come off as rude when you posted it. As to the actual argument, no. "Happiness is a good thing" is not a a theorem of my moral philosophy. "I want to be happy" is, and that itself is sufficent for morality even if I don't bother talking about whether it's "good" or "right" or "proper" for me (or anyone else) to be happy.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 04, 2012, 08:04:25 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 04, 2012, 08:23:55 pm
Human tend to functional somewhat decently when we live in large interdependent groups.I'll take issue with this, unless your definition of "somewhat decently" is much more lenient than mine. Humans in large groups tend to act like preschool children, arguing over who gets the toys, not knowing how to share, hitting each other, and being unwilling to clean up their own messes.
Humanity's "baseline morality" has kept us alive, but it's also allowed things like war, prejudice, and hate to run rampant. I believe the less we rely on instinctual "common sense" and the more we mutually discuss things and participate in introspection, the better of we'll be. Human beings are balls of cognitive dissonance and that can only be solved by examining what we believe in detail.
Post by: Loud Whispers on August 05, 2012, 02:30:55 am
I'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.Nope, all part of our biological leash. It's why humanity shares the same emotions.
Post by: lemon10 on August 05, 2012, 02:51:39 am
And when's the last time you saw someone disagree morally with their God? Believing in God doesn't help you not be a dick if God agrees with you.A lot of times.
Sure, if you are a power hungry asshole, then you probably won't go "Hey, what I am doing is wrong, and I will go to hell for it", however if you are A) Gay and heavily religious, or even B) Just a rather evil dude (eg. a study/survey showed that CEO's that believed in hell (but the belief in heaven was irrelevant) acted better, then those that didn't (I don't know how accurate the study was or anything however), if you are planning on murdering someone, then you will probably think "Hey, this might get me sent to hell", it won't make that big of an impact, but it will make an impact nonetheless.
Also, if there were a rule that it isn't proper to be happy, and you stopped being happy because you like the person who told you that rule, wouldn't you be happy because you made your friend happy because you followed his rule?Obviously not, because then you would be happy, which means that you aren't not happy, which means that you are breaking his rule.
Post by: vagel7 on August 05, 2012, 02:59:34 am
Humanity's "baseline morality" has kept us alive, but it's also allowed things like war, prejudice, and hate to run rampant. I believe the less we rely on instinctual "common sense" and the more we mutually discuss things and participate in introspection, the better of we'll be. Human beings are balls of cognitive dissonance and that can only be solved by examining what we believe in detail.
Yet religion has not stopped war, prejudice or hate. It has in fact added fuel to those flames. Look at the crusades, bloody and hard wars fought for a tiny strip of land, in one crusade children were sent because the church believed that children are pure. No matter the fact that Christians believe that we are all born in sin and will forever be sinners.
Prejudice is something that we see from fundamentalists and yes, there are a lot of fundamentalists in Christianity, the Evangelicals and Born Again Christians being the majority. They take the Bible by the word and they do what god tells them to and as such are prejudice towards for example homosexuals. I really don't want to bring atheism(it is not a religion) into this, but any dislike that an atheist may have towards a homosexual does not come from some fairytale.
Hate is very strong in Islam where the Quran orders to exterminate the non-believers, force them to the narrow part of the road and not greet them first. Terrorism from the Middle East comes from this, as they believe that they must cleanse our society. Hate is also in Christianity, the most of it seen near abortion clinics in the US. The clinics have escorts and locked doors with reinforced glass because the religious flock outside the doors harasses the patients and is a physical threat. For example the clinic bombings and murders in the eighties in the US.
Religion is not the key.
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2012, 03:12:38 am
Regardless as to if religion is or is not the key, that kind of misrepresentation and blatant ignorance helps no one and nothing.
Post by: vagel7 on August 05, 2012, 03:19:56 am
Religion formed the entire world and it's time is long past. The time to believe in mythical creatures and fairytales is over.
Post by: Reudh on August 05, 2012, 03:27:20 am
Humanity's "baseline morality" has kept us alive, but it's also allowed things like war, prejudice, and hate to run rampant. I believe the less we rely on instinctual "common sense" and the more we mutually discuss things and participate in introspection, the better of we'll be. Human beings are balls of cognitive dissonance and that can only be solved by examining what we believe in detail.
Yet religion has not stopped war, prejudice or hate. It has in fact added fuel to those flames. Look at the crusades, bloody and hard wars fought for a tiny strip of land, in one crusade children were sent because the church believed that children are pure. No matter the fact that Christians believe that we are all born in sin and will forever be sinners.
Prejudice is something that we see from fundamentalists and yes, there are a lot of fundamentalists in Christianity, the Evangelicals and Born Again Christians being the majority. They take the Bible by the word and they do what god tells them to and as such are prejudice towards for example homosexuals. I really don't want to bring atheism(it is not a religion) into this, but any dislike that an atheist may have towards a homosexual does not come from some fairytale.
Hate is very strong in Islam where the Quran orders to exterminate the non-believers, force them to the narrow part of the road and not greet them first. Terrorism from the Middle East comes from this, as they believe that they must cleanse our society. Hate is also in Christianity, the most of it seen near abortion clinics in the US. The clinics have escorts and locked doors with reinforced glass because the religious flock outside the doors harasses the patients and is a physical threat. For example the clinic bombings and murders in the eighties in the US.
Religion is not the key.
Skull-shattering facepalm through my face.
Religion has bad and good parts. The quran does not command muslims to hate, the people in charge of certain sects do. Just as with Christianity and a myriad other religions.
Eg: Wahabiism. They're viewed with distrust and fear by the Shia and Sunni because they're very extremist.
The same can be said of well... fundamentalism in the States.
You seem to be letting the deeds of a few mar the deeds of the many.
I agree that religion is an issue but it's not right to tar an entire religion with one brush when in reality a very small percentage is the issue.
Every muslim or christian I have met have been possibly the nicest people I've ever met. Most of them were at uni, but still...
I stress this:
Extremists do not represent a religion.
Did Christianity not forcibly convert others? Did Christianity not murder men woman and children in the name of crusades?
Did the popes of that era say "The more non-believers you kill, the better your chances of eternal bliss?"
Did anyone not Christian in pretty much every country face punishment for being a heretic?
Post by: vagel7 on August 05, 2012, 03:42:37 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 04:10:28 am
Quote
It is when the extremists overpower the mainstreamers in a religion, as we see now, that it is bad
Question 1: Point me in the direction of a current example where a mainstream religion is being overpowered by extremist elements. It sure is not Islam.
Question 2: Was it "bad" when the west meddled with the Iran/Iraq war, or in the Afghanistan/USSR conflict, or in any other examples where people could be manipulated to our benefit? Is it only "bad" when people take power for themselves according to thier held ideals rather than being given it?
Quote
The extremists are making the most moves in politics and as such are moving to represent their religion in politics
Question 3: Could you give me an example to point out where a religious extremist group is making the most moves in a political field? I am struggling to think of any off the top of my head.
Question 4: People have always let thier religion (or religion as a whole) affect thier politics. A countries laws and heritage often reflect the religions that shaped the histroy of thier country, be they Christian, Bhuddist, Jewish or Islamic. This is not new. Consider statements ike "In God We Trust". Look at Turkey - a secular nation with an Islamic heritage. Its religion has shaped its politics but is is far from a threatening entity. Is it only wrong/bad if the veiw represented is not one you can identify with?
Quote
What I see as strange is that Vatican, the Christian throne, is itself not extremist
Question 4: Is the only reason you see this as not extremist is that it is a point of veiw that matches your own viewpoint? I mean, from an outside standpoint (be it a different branch of Christianity, Islam, Bhudism, Hinduism or whatever) it is easy to see how decrees banning condoms and unusual behaviour in the face of sexual abuse allegations could be portryaed as "extremist behaviour".
Context: I am a Nihilistic Atheist. Whilst I dislike religions I also accept that I have in no way shape or form the right to tell others what to think or beleive. I respect those who hold any sort of faith in the same way I respect anyone who has a similar world veiw to my own. I just feel you need to help me understand the points you are trying to make here - I am not saying you are wrong, I just want to know where you are coming from.
Post by: G-Flex on August 05, 2012, 04:13:46 am
It is when the extremists overpower the mainstreamers in a religion, as we see now, that it is bad. The extremists are making the most moves in politics and as such are moving to represent their religion in politics. What I see as strange is that Vatican, the Christian throne, is itself not extremist.
The Vatican isn't "the Christian throne". Not all of Christianity is Roman Catholic.
Also, a lot of people certainly would call them extremist in some ways. Apostolic succession is a little out-there, as is that whole "ex cathedra" thing, and their views on sexuality are even more severe and, frankly, outlandish, than most fundamentalist Protestants. They're certainly less extremist in other ways, but really, it depends on the subject here.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 05, 2012, 04:15:28 am
Did you just interpret my post as being supportive of religion as a moral guide?Humanity's "baseline morality" has kept us alive, but it's also allowed things like war, prejudice, and hate to run rampant. I believe the less we rely on instinctual "common sense" and the more we mutually discuss things and participate in introspection, the better of we'll be. Human beings are balls of cognitive dissonance and that can only be solved by examining what we believe in detail.
Yet religion has not stopped war, prejudice or hate. It has in fact added fuel to those flames. Look at the crusades, bloody and hard wars fought for a tiny strip of land, in one crusade children were sent because the church believed that children are pure. No matter the fact that Christians believe that we are all born in sin and will forever be sinners.
Prejudice is something that we see from fundamentalists and yes, there are a lot of fundamentalists in Christianity, the Evangelicals and Born Again Christians being the majority. They take the Bible by the word and they do what god tells them to and as such are prejudice towards for example homosexuals. I really don't want to bring atheism(it is not a religion) into this, but any dislike that an atheist may have towards a homosexual does not come from some fairytale.
Hate is very strong in Islam where the Quran orders to exterminate the non-believers, force them to the narrow part of the road and not greet them first. Terrorism from the Middle East comes from this, as they believe that they must cleanse our society. Hate is also in Christianity, the most of it seen near abortion clinics in the US. The clinics have escorts and locked doors with reinforced glass because the religious flock outside the doors harasses the patients and is a physical threat. For example the clinic bombings and murders in the eighties in the US.
Religion is not the key.
I don't expect you to read the entirety of the thread, but if you go back and read my posts, it should be plain as day that I am NOT a theist (agnostic, and perhaps more sympathetic to theism ideas than most though).
Your examples are good ones for showing why having an arbitrary moral authority (god) does not stop things we can pretty much all agree are bad (violence and hate). I wouldn't say religion necessarily causes violence and hate, but it can enable it as much as it deters it.
Anywho, my post was a direct response to what I quoted, along with a jab at Magma McFry's assertion here:
Quote
People should adhere to conventions because they passed the "apply common sense" test, not because they're told to.
What I'm saying is we need to think about our morality, not go with instinct or "common sense" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Without introspection, and without putting our ideas out for discussion, we'll never, ever, EVER solve our moral issues. Thinking is key. Gut feeling is not, and could very well be harmful if not properly examined first.
Post by: Domenique on August 05, 2012, 05:18:30 am
Post by: Reudh on August 05, 2012, 05:49:25 am
Post by: Hiiri on August 05, 2012, 07:20:52 am
As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for people to hate one another. Why bother?
What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?
Post by: Skyrunner on August 05, 2012, 07:32:24 am
Now, bear in mind I have no logic training at all, but I think this isn't a correct argument. Strawman, maybe?As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for people to hate one another. Why bother?What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?
*pops out of thread again*
Post by: Siquo on August 05, 2012, 07:50:57 am
'Something someone made up' is not a detriment, that is my whole point. Earlier someone said "faith is a belief without evidence", therefore, the belief that "happiness is a good thing" must be a faith. "Something someone made up" also applies to a God.QuoteD. Evidence-based morality is still something you made up, and even though it might work for you personally, I still think you're bending the concept of "evidence" as you defined it.I dont understand why 'something someone made up' is a detriment.QuoteI'm not saying that is good, bad, or anything about atheists or theists. I'm just saying that one cannot have morality or values based only on the type of evidence you defined, that you need to just go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, and say "Hey, happiness is a good thing". That is, in itself, a belief not staved by evidence, and is therefore faith, as per the earlier definition.No, no faith needed.
Contrary to what many atheists seem to want, you Can Not Have A Meaningful Life Without A Form Of Faith (capitalised because that makes it more true, of course), since, by throwing semantics and logic around, any Meaning is a Faith. Faith being defined as "A belief without evidence" and evidence as per Greks earlier definition. Belief defined as per Wikipedia's definition "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true", and "Meaning" (this is a tricky one), as that what you find in life is important, that which is the driving force behind acting at all. Acting upon the desire not to have pain is already a meaning, in this case. "Meaningful life" defined as any state other than catatonia.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 08:33:55 am
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2012, 11:05:24 am
Faith is simply belief that either has not been or can not be justified -- stuff that does not have (in some cases, yet) an empirical truth value, generally (there's wiggle room in there for non empirical stuff, I'd think.). The unjustifiable sort is definitely more prevalent in religious circles, but it's neither universal among them (perhaps universal among the theist ones, but that's not the whole of religion) or exclusive to them.
Post by: Siquo on August 05, 2012, 11:56:53 am
When an atheist uses the word faith, they refer to the belief in a god, not that beleiving such postulations as "suffering is universally bad".Making them different from "the others". But it's the same thing.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 12:03:30 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 05, 2012, 12:03:51 pm
When an atheist uses the word faith, they refer to the belief in a god, not that beleiving such postulations as "suffering is universally bad".
"Atheist" is one of the most broad and vague terms you can make when classifying people based on what they believe in. Making blanket statements like this about such a diverse group isn't really a good idea.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 12:09:54 pm
Post by: Reudh on August 05, 2012, 02:42:06 pm
Now, bear in mind I have no logic training at all, but I think this isn't a correct argument. Strawman, maybe?As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for normal people to hate one another. Why bother?What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?
*pops out of thread again*
FTFMyself
Post by: Grek on August 05, 2012, 03:10:53 pm
Faith being defined as "A belief without evidence" and evidence as per Greks earlier definition. Belief defined as per Wikipedia's definition "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true",
The key point here is the definition of the word "true". Much like the proposition, "X is on the left.", the proposition, "X is a good thing." often does not have a set truth value when you don't also have a set perspective. On who's left? My left? Your left? My good? Your good? Who knows!
When people are talking about objective matters, things that actually do have a set truth value, they don't say things like, "I have faith that the sky is blue." or "I beleive the sky is blue." or "The sky being blue is neccessary for my morality." They just say "The sky is blue." and take you to go see it if you disagree with them. This is because they're talking about the sky, rather than using the sky to talk, in a roundabout fashion, about themselves.
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2012, 03:36:53 pm
The very concept of "pure" color is completely at odds with my empirical experience and while I speak of them as a matter of convenience and can sort of recognize them in an abstract sense (partially blue field, ferex), I'm not actually talking about the same phenomena, because I've never encountered it. When I say the sky is blue, I'm actually saying I believe the sky is the thing most of the rest of you probably call blue :P It's not actually a single color to me -- insofar as actual experience goes, singular color might as well be a platonic ideal without physical expression.
Now, when you say something like "the desk is hard," then there's definite agreement. That's a bit harder to experience differently, and hardness is a bit less abstract and subjective than color.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 05, 2012, 03:38:31 pm
Post by: Frumple on August 05, 2012, 03:52:16 pm
Guess I'm saying there's a bit more convention to part of what's being measured (particularly re: interpretation, in this case) than might be being considered.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 05, 2012, 06:39:07 pm
No. They're human beings, just as much as the ones they abused.As a humanist atheistic buddhist, I see no reason for people to hate one another. Why bother?
What's wrong with controlled hate? I hate child rapists, don't you?
I may hate rape, though. I may hate the mindsets and predispositions that would lead to it. But the people who perpetrate it? Pity at worst.
To paraphrase Yoda, hate is the path to the Dark Side. All it leads to is vengeance, which isn't useful in any way and makes hypocrites of those who pursue it.
Post by: fqllve on August 05, 2012, 07:56:42 pm
However, I do find it hard to pity them. I kind of have to have some understanding of their point of view for me to feel pity and this isn't really one of the cases where I do.
Post by: vagel7 on August 06, 2012, 03:12:51 am
Quote
Question 1: Point me in the direction of a current example where a mainstream religion is being overpowered by extremist elements. It sure is not Islam.
I said that it is overpowered by extremists or fundamentalists when those people are loud enough to sway the public opinion on what that or that religion is like. This is the thing that for example Fox News is doing, a very conservative news station that like it or not is trying to spread religious dogma.
Quote
Question 2: Was it "bad" when the west meddled with the Iran/Iraq war, or in the Afghanistan/USSR conflict, or in any other examples where people could be manipulated to our benefit? Is it only "bad" when people take power for themselves according to thier held ideals rather than being given it?
The "good-bad" dynamics are introduced by you. There is no clear good or bad, everything depends upon the perspective, there are only different shades of grey. I'm not quite sure that I can answer this question as I am quite Machiavellian myself.
Quote
Question 3: Could you give me an example to point out where a religious extremist group is making the most moves in a political field? I am struggling to think of any off the top of my head.
Applying strong pressure and public protests are political moves. This can be seen in the UK where Muslims want to implement Sharia law and are organizing protests for it.
Quote
Question 4: People have always let thier religion (or religion as a whole) affect thier politics. A countries laws and heritage often reflect the religions that shaped the histroy of thier country, be they Christian, Bhuddist, Jewish or Islamic. This is not new. Consider statements ike "In God We Trust". Look at Turkey - a secular nation with an Islamic heritage. Its religion has shaped its politics but is is far from a threatening entity. Is it only wrong/bad if the veiw represented is not one you can identify with?
No, religion as a whole is bad in politics and should not have any say in it. I myself am lucky to have been born in a country that is very atheistic, in fact 49% are atheists and our president nor our primeminister has the word "god" in their oath.
Quote
Question 4: Is the only reason you see this as not extremist is that it is a point of veiw that matches your own viewpoint? I mean, from an outside standpoint (be it a different branch of Christianity, Islam, Bhudism, Hinduism or whatever) it is easy to see how decrees banning condoms and unusual behaviour in the face of sexual abuse allegations could be portryaed as "extremist behaviour".
The Vatican eased its ban on condoms 2 years ago, it is now more of a grey area. However I make no attempt at defending them in the sexual abuse case, that was wrong through and through, yet it is not different than what many other politicians would attempt. The Vatican is a political organization and the pope as well as the high ranking figures in the Holy See are politicians as much as they are religious figures.
Quote
Context: I am a Nihilistic Atheist. Whilst I dislike religions I also accept that I have in no way shape or form the right to tell others what to think or beleive. I respect those who hold any sort of faith in the same way I respect anyone who has a similar world veiw to my own. I just feel you need to help me understand the points you are trying to make here - I am not saying you are wrong, I just want to know where you are coming from.
I myself also respect peoples views on everything in life, but I just like to debate and that may give an impression that I am intolerant. I also accept that some of my points might come through wrong since English is not my first language.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 08, 2012, 09:41:40 pm
Quote from: Me
Let’s say you’re driving with your dog. You need to stop at the store so you park your car and leave the dog inside for a few minutes. When you come out, you’ve forgotten what your car looks like, and worse, there are a million cars in the parking lot. After some time, you come across a car containing your dog.
By your logic re: anthropic constants, you would look at this car and say “This can’t be my car, the odds of any given car being mine are one in a million,” ignoring your dog. In reality, the other cars (possible realities) are irrelevant, and the probability of this world supporting life are irrelevant because it supports life. The probability of an event that’s already happened is 1.
Design is, simply put, an illusion. If I pour water into a hole, the water will perfectly conform to the shape of the hole. Would the water be justified in believing the hole was designed to fit it? No. Likewise, the fact that human life is adapted to life on Earth does not imply the Earth was designed to accommodate human life.
Quote from: Him
If the argument was from only the small probability, you would have a point. But it is not just the small probability; it is the corresponding pattern as well. As I explained, any license plate is just as unlikely. But if you get a license plate with your name and birth date, you would be obtuse to just shrug that off.
Quote from: Me
The license plate analogy is a false one, you’re forgetting the anthropic principle. If you’re right and any of the constants being wrong would make it impossible for humans to exist, then there’s only one reality where humans exist to observe it: This one. While there may be alternative universes, this universe must necessarily be compatible with human life, and its compatibility is not remarkable.
Quote from: Him
It absolutely is an accurate analogy. It is used to explain the corresponding pattern (namely, the initial condition needed for human life) along with the infinitesimally improbability of that actually occurring. You might not like my license plate analogy; that is fine. It was just used as an illustration to make the main point more clear. Which is that your refutation is logically invalid, because it assumes that the argument is completely dependent on the vast improbability, when it is not.
Quote from: Me
You’re apparently going to have to explain this “pattern” to me, because I see no pattern in your argument that doesn’t fall under necessary conditions based on the anthropic principle. If, due to some bizarre circumstances, the only universe in which Bob can exist is the one where his license plate is BOB 4442, then it is not remarkable that he got that license plate, regardless of its special relevance /or/ its rarity based on simple probability. It is the only license plate he can exist to observe. Likewise, a universe whose conditions allow human life is the only kind of universe humans can exist to observe, so our observing such a universe is not remarkable.
Quote from: Him
Your defense of chance is incredible. You are essentially saying that because the actual world is actualized, that therefore there are no other possible worlds, which is patently absurd. If to follow this objection to its’ logical conclusion, one would literally be left defending the premise that the actual world is the only possible world, which, again, leaves you with a burden of proof that you cannot bear.
Quote from: Me
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that a world with humans to observe it must necessarily be a world that can support humans. There is no need for proof here, it’s self-evident. It isn’t remarkable that the Earth is where it is because if it were somewhere else we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Wikipedia’s summary of Brandon Carter’s Weak Anthropic Principle is good:
“… the universe’s ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.”
Quote from: Him
I find it logically appalling to think that this undercuts anything in the argument. That we happen to notice truth says absolutely nothing about the validity of truth. This bad objection is guilty of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of genetics. One cannot refute a position by indicating how it is that one has come to know that position. Of course we came to know it because we are in such a universe.
I mean even granting this objection, both the infinitesimal probability and the corresponding pattern remain. So I grant your objection, but the conclusion that it is ‘not remarkable’, does not even follow.
This is where we are. I'm pretty sure the genetic fallacy doesn't apply here. Aside from that I'm still working through it and trying to put together an argument, but my lack of experience in actual formal debate is hindering me. Any advice? Did I fuck up at any obvious points?
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 08, 2012, 10:03:42 pm
I'm assuming that's what it is but I want conformation before I go on getting the context of the argument wrong.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 08, 2012, 10:07:30 pm
I don't know how that applies here.
Post by: Grek on August 08, 2012, 10:13:45 pm
Can you explain, in your own words, that what Brandon Carter means when he says things like "selection bias"? If so, tell him that. If not, you have no business winning a debate by saying "anthropic principle", much less believing in such a principle, and it would be unfair to your opponent to help you win by tricking him into thinking that you have better reasons than you actually do.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 08, 2012, 10:20:58 pm
But you're right. That I'm not ready for this debate I'm in is hard to accept but you're right, I'm not ready for this debate I'm in.
Post by: Karlito on August 08, 2012, 10:32:35 pm
Your argument looks sound to me, though since I already understand the weak anthropic principle I couldn't say how your explanation looks to someone who doesn't.
Psudo-Edit: I had started typing a bunch of stuff regarding the 122 anthropic constants argument, but then I realized that it wasn't entirely relevant.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 08, 2012, 10:46:12 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 09, 2012, 08:12:59 am
Quote from: Cthulhu
Quote from: MeYou’re apparently going to have to explain this “pattern” to me, because I see no pattern in your argument that doesn’t fall under necessary conditions based on the anthropic principle. If, due to some bizarre circumstances, the only universe in which Bob can exist is the one where his license plate is BOB 4442, then it is not remarkable that he got that license plate, regardless of its special relevance /or/ its rarity based on simple probability. It is the only license plate he can exist to observe. Likewise, a universe whose conditions allow human life is the only kind of universe humans can exist to observe, so our observing such a universe is not remarkable.Quote from: HimYour defense of chance is incredible. You are essentially saying that because the actual world is actualized, that therefore there are no other possible worlds, which is patently absurd. If to follow this objection to its’ logical conclusion, one would literally be left defending the premise that the actual world is the only possible world, which, again, leaves you with a burden of proof that you cannot bear.
Holy shit, this is the most epic straw man I've ever seen.
Here's a nice follow-up:
Let's assume there are exactly 2.5 bajillion universes, and all of them have slightly different parameters. Some universes support Bob's existence, and some don't. Now if we pick one at random and ask it "Hey, Bob, does your universe support your existence?", then what is the chance that we get a "No" back?
Now let's return back to our universe. You find it incredibly inexplicable that our universe supports our existence. But shouldn't you be much more surprised if our universe wouldn't support our existence? The question "Does our universe support our existence" is a yes/no question, and if you find both answers surprising, then there must be something you fail to comprehend.
Post by: palsch on August 09, 2012, 08:47:53 am
The principle here is that whether the universe was designed or not, whether it were deliberately fine tuned or not, we would expect it to appear as though it was fine tuned. That the universe is fit to human life is equally justified by saying that human life is fit to the universe (in the 'survival of the most fit' sense). In this sense, no matter how fine the apparent tuning, the anthropic principle suggests that this is to be expected in a universe where man evolved by chance. Were the tuning different then man would be similarly different, fit to that new tuning, or absent if the tuning is, well, atonal.
Alone the principle isn't enough to show the universe isn't designed, although usually the evidence used to argue against it can be turned around to show that the universe isn't actually all that well designed for human life, given that even within our fairly habitable strips of the narrow atmosphere wrapping this one planet there are an awful lot of things that not only don't help human life but are efficient at ending it. If the universe were tuned especially for humans is there any reason for the tuning to stop once it's created such a fragile environment?
It's also a principle we need to keep in mind when taking into account our biases. It's like a test where the pass mark is always set at the lowest grade. Using the fact that you passed such a test as evidence that you are good at the subject just isn't a valid argument. If you relied on the fact that you passed that test to accept that you are doing enough work and learning the subject well then you might get into trouble when you actually have to use that knowledge in the future.
I also think Douglas Adams summed this one up well; (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/)
Quote from: DNA
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 09, 2012, 09:59:27 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 09, 2012, 05:25:13 pm
My point exactly.what is the chance that we get a "No" back?very, very low because bob isn't alive.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 09, 2012, 05:34:19 pm
Nobody was around to count the universes that failed to allow the emergence of an entity cable of observing the universe...Assuming there are other universes at all.
The multiverse concept is kinda wacky, actually. For the longest time no one really thought that way, and thought God and heaven and whatever all existed in this one. Then we found reason to doubt that, and invented new spacial dimensions to stick them in. Then we found a certain uncertainty principle, and thought it'd be funny if the universe split into infinite other universes every instant.
Allow me to take a skepticist position for once. Why would we expect there to be any other plane of existence than our own? Ours can be literally the only one. That it has a distinct beginning (unless you count imaginary time) and end (big rip, woo!) doesn't suggest it's not unique.
Post by: Graknorke on August 09, 2012, 05:43:12 pm
Or really any time travelling story ever that features something that isn't stable time loops (All of them that aren't Doctor Who).
Post by: kaijyuu on August 09, 2012, 05:53:08 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 09, 2012, 06:04:07 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on August 09, 2012, 09:25:07 pm
Holy shit, this is the most epic straw man I've ever seen.
He actually has a way worse one in another discussion I'm having with him. I dropped the anthropic principle one, it's not something I'm experienced enough to be arguing, this one I know better and I think I've put together a pretty strong post, which he has yet to address.
Anyway, he rebuts the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit with two main points. The first, possibly the most brazen strawman I've ever seen, he slips a Point 7 (Therefore God does not exist) into the argument and then argues that the conclusion he fabricated is a non sequitur and thus the argument is invalid. That takes some serious balls.
The other main argument is that God is functionally complex without being structurally complex. Why functional complexity doesn't count as complexity when evaluating God's ability to explain apparent design I don't know and asked him to elaborate.
Post by: alway on August 09, 2012, 09:38:13 pm
Why would we expect there to be any other plane of existence than our own?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Depends on the type. The 'many worlds' version, aka 'everything is the same, but people wear different hats' version interprets quantum randomness as a divergence of universe-states; essentially stating that all possible paths are taken.
Then there's the M-theory variation, where our 'universe' consists of only a small aspect of a larger metaverse; sort of like a 'side' being a 2 dimensional part of a 3 dimensional cube, or an 'edge' being a 1 dimensional part of a 3 dimensional cube; though in this case, it's a 4 dimensional part of an 11 dimensional membrane.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 09, 2012, 09:50:26 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 09, 2012, 10:35:45 pm
Multidimensional stuff is just painful to think about...
You can feel free to stick to lines, I guess. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote
I really wish there was some other mathematical model that could be used to describe the universe. I don't like the idea of living in a place that I literally cannot comprehend.
Nothing "multiversal" is, well, actually used to mathematically describe the universe. There's the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that's just an interpretation, and doesn't particularly affect a thing. String theory still seems pretty up in the air itself.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 09, 2012, 10:45:01 pm
Post by: G-Flex on August 09, 2012, 10:54:25 pm
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 09, 2012, 11:08:51 pm
Post by: Karlito on August 09, 2012, 11:12:37 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on August 10, 2012, 12:09:28 am
While theories in that vein may be neat and elegant mathematical explanations, there currently isn't any way to design an experiment to test them. So it's impossible to make the determination of whether they are or are not correct in any empirical way.
It is somewhat similar to saying, "We live in a computer game." If we do, we can't prove it because being a fabricated part of the computer, we couldn't test outside the computer. If we don't, then we can't prove it because it isn't true.
Post by: G-Flex on August 10, 2012, 12:16:11 am
While theories in that vein may be neat and elegant mathematical explanations, there currently isn't any way to design an experiment to test them. So it's impossible to make the determination of whether they are or are not correct in any empirical way.
If something isn't empirically verifiable or useful, then it's not really a theory in the first place.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 10, 2012, 01:02:02 am
If the many worlds theory is indeed unfalsifiable, then its general acceptance is not a reason to believe it. And as a fun bonus, I have another unfalsifiable claim that science generally accepts (even if in a half-hearted, "this makes sense and we haven't any better ideas" sort of way).
Good enough for me. That's what I was fishing for.
Post by: G-Flex on August 10, 2012, 01:33:38 am
Sure it is. It's just not a theory that can be proven one way or another. So, it's unfalsifiable.
... Do you know what "theory" means in the world of science? If you do, then you know that something unfalsifiable is not a theory. Not even remotely.
Quote
And as a fun bonus, I have another unfalsifiable claim that science generally accepts (even if in a half-hearted, "this makes sense and we haven't any better ideas" sort of way).
I don't know of any unfalsifiable claims that science "generally accepts". Please enlighten me.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 10, 2012, 04:45:09 am
Actually, the current scientific consensus is one of a many-worlds theory, because it is the model where quantum interference is most easily explained, namely as interaction between similar universes. The equations match up, too. And the reasons that scientists assume true many-worlds theory instead of simulated many-worlds theory (where the universe simulates some parallel worlds, makes them interact, then picks one randomly) is because true many-worlds theory is simpler in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (the industrial-grade measure for scientific applications of Occam's Razor).
Refs? By wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Reception), most polls on it's acceptance place it's maybe second or third most popular, some quite a ways lower still. Most widely accepted I've seen is Copenhagen.
Post by: Siquo on August 10, 2012, 04:52:32 am
I don't know of any unfalsifiable claims that science "generally accepts". Please enlighten me.I've got three for you, right here off of wikipedia: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. ;)
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 10, 2012, 05:15:13 am
A theory is an explanation for how observed events occur, whereas those are all assumptions made prior to any observations.
Post by: Siquo on August 10, 2012, 05:56:47 am
Aren't those axioms though?Yeah, they are, but now there's people using the different definitions of "theory" and arguing. Semantics are important. They are "unfalsifiable claims" though.
A theory is an explanation for how observed events occur, whereas those are all assumptions made prior to any observations.
...
Just like "God exists but you can't prove it". *ducks for cover*
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 10, 2012, 06:07:15 am
Yeah, they are, but now there's people using the different definitions of "theory" and arguing.
Yes, but those people are wrong, and relying on a knowingly wrong definition to make a point is generally a sub-optimal strategy :P
Post by: Graknorke on August 10, 2012, 06:21:56 am
Post by: Siquo on August 10, 2012, 07:05:01 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 10, 2012, 08:42:35 am
Actually, the current scientific consensus is one of a many-worlds theory, because it is the model where quantum interference is most easily explained, namely as interaction between similar universes. The equations match up, too. And the reasons that scientists assume true many-worlds theory instead of simulated many-worlds theory (where the universe simulates some parallel worlds, makes them interact, then picks one randomly) is because true many-worlds theory is simpler in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (the industrial-grade measure for scientific applications of Occam's Razor).
Refs? By wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Reception), most polls on it's acceptance place it's maybe second or third most popular, some quite a ways lower still. Most widely accepted I've seen is Copenhagen.
Well, I distinctly recall reading the consensus part on a page I have yet to remember, but I got taught the Copenhagen model at school, so I'll take that one back. But the Copenhagen model is to the MWI as the geocentric model is to the heliocentric one: It has lots of unnecessary complexity and fails to answer some questions (How can particles be in many places at once? Why does a wavefunction collapse when it's measured? What the hell constitutes a measurement? Why do planets move on these weird paths?), which can all be simply and easily explained by the other model (The universe splits into many slightly different universes at every point in time, which interact according to their proximity in configuration space).
By the way, random thought ahead: There is possibly an even simpler explanation for everything, namely that time is a smooth vector field over state space.
Post by: G-Flex on August 10, 2012, 12:02:44 pm
It means a lot of things. Most people do not use the scientific definition. That is okay, but confusing the two is where stupidity happens.
It's really not okay to be using a colloquial definition of the word when the conversation is about science, though.
Actually, the current scientific consensus is one of a many-worlds theory, because it is the model where quantum interference is most easily explained, namely as interaction between similar universes. The equations match up, too. And the reasons that scientists assume true many-worlds theory instead of simulated many-worlds theory (where the universe simulates some parallel worlds, makes them interact, then picks one randomly) is because true many-worlds theory is simpler in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (the industrial-grade measure for scientific applications of Occam's Razor).
Refs? By wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Reception), most polls on it's acceptance place it's maybe second or third most popular, some quite a ways lower still. Most widely accepted I've seen is Copenhagen.
Well, I distinctly recall reading the consensus part on a page I have yet to remember, but I got taught the Copenhagen model at school, so I'll take that one back. But the Copenhagen model is to the MWI as the geocentric model is to the heliocentric one: It has lots of unnecessary complexity and fails to answer some questions (How can particles be in many places at once? Why does a wavefunction collapse when it's measured? What the hell constitutes a measurement? Why do planets move on these weird paths?), which can all be simply and easily explained by the other model (The universe splits into many slightly different universes at every point in time, which interact according to their proximity in configuration space).
I don't think it's fair to compare interpretations of quantum mechanics to theories regarding the position/movement of heavenly bodies. One of those sets comprises falsifiable, testable, useful theories about the universe, and the other does not. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are not theories, which is why they're called "interpretations". They're simply different ways of understanding and visualizing the described phenomena and mathematical realities involved.
Post by: palsch on August 10, 2012, 12:16:20 pm
Well, I distinctly recall reading the consensus part on a page I have yet to remember...Given what you wrote, sounds like Less Wrong. Eliezer Yudkowsky announced that MWI is correct for reasons that, from a physicists point of view, don't hold any real weight. I'm also pretty sure he gets his maths completely wrong on two occasions, not really showing any actual understanding of quantum mechanics (an inherently mathematical subject) while dismissing quantum physicists as blinded by orthodoxy. MWI still has a number of problems while not offering any real positive benefits.
I really need to write a hell of a lot about both quantum mechanics and philosophy of science (and am tempted to do both) to even make the fundamental points about this debate, but I can make some broad claims here and hopefully they won't be taken the wrong way.
1) Most physicists use Copenhagen interpretation language but broadly subscribe to the shut up and calculate (SUAC) (not to be mistaken for the extreme SUAC (http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024) which is a form of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646) and can safely be ignored for now) school of thought, where the interpretation of what the equations of quantum mechanics mean is utterly irrelevant to the actual equations themselves. Any valid and complete interpretation of QM must give the same empirical and mathematical results, so what interpretation you subscribe to simply changes the language you use to refer to each feature. Copenhagen happens to be the easiest language to comprehend and teach in for most people, being only strongly counter-intuitive. MWI requires a massive mental shift and introduces a number of major pitfalls (not least confusing MWI with multiverse concepts) as well as being strongly counter-intuitive. I will say that MWI actually has a couple of areas it (slightly arguably) becomes a better language for talking about ideas in (quantum cosmology and computation/information, although these are also the areas with more advocates so part of that might just be it's the native language and it is far from required for either), but you really need to make sure you have gotten whoever you are talking to past those pitfalls and that they aren't mistaking it for an intuitive idea.
2) MWI does not, in my book, actually get rid of any of the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation in a convincing or satisfying manner. All of them are present in other forms (eg, world splitting vs waveform collapse). In fact it makes at least the measurement problem into a pretty well lethal issue; the nature of probability and derivation of the Born rule. Broadly speaking if you get rid of measurement you get rid of probability and have to re-insert it somehow. The attempts to do so have been broadly unconvincing and/or have often introduced new flaws or gross modifications to the physics (otherwise unphysical modifications to Schrödinger's equation...). Without a valid description of probability MWI is effectively an incomplete description of quantum mechanics, making it less valuable than more grossly philosophically troubling interpretations if you value such things.
3) Related to 2, MWI can actually describe a range of universes. Not talking about multiple worlds here, but rather families of universes. Think of it as the different possible configurations of dimensions in M-theory. There are a vast number of ways you can arrange such dimensions and each gives you a different physics. Some tiny subset describe universes where the physics is similar to ours. There is no absolute reason to privilege this subset, let alone any specific configuration. The only current reasoning we would see such physics from M-theory is anthropic and not wholly satisfactory without introducing extra ideas (birthing universes within a multiverse for example) to justify such an anthropic principle of universes.
The range of universes MWI can describe is related to the probability functions again. I have seen no convincing way of introducing probabilities that doesn't have some arbitrary basis for those probabilities, usually meaning you have to front-load the theory to get the right answers out (select the right geometry of dimensions to get our physics). This is similarly unsatisfactory and still doesn't solve all the probability issues IMO.
4) The nature of MWI from a philosophical point of view is kinda complicated and confused. It is, in a sense, a naive realist interpretation; the formal mathematical description of the wavefunction is taken to be an exact and physical description of reality. This is sometimes given as a definition of MWI from both critics and advocates. Yet it does not hold the same philosophical values as other scientific realist descriptions (Bohmian mechanics, etc) which have significant things to say about realism vs locality, etc. MWI is often regarded as philosophically uninteresting in this regard, completely outside the realm of the ideas that can actually be explored within such debates or have influence on them in turn. Even when philosophical conclusions are drawn from it they are far from either required by or unique to the theory.
This is particularly significant because some of these philosophical debates are deeply intertwined with the evolution of quantum physics. The investigations into Bell's theorem are fundamentally philosophical but can be conducted using an optical table, laser, some mirrors and a lot of smarts. Spending time on non-MWI interpretations can lead to such investigations which return objective value. I don't see much value coming from MWI in this sense.
OK, I've spent quite a while on this and I'm still not satisfied with it. I think these points hold, although they could do with tightening up and refining somewhat (not to mention references out the wazoo), but I'm just going to post this and see what happens.
Post by: G-Flex on August 10, 2012, 12:45:07 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 10, 2012, 01:54:54 pm
Also, I find the mental shifts in the Copenhagen model greater than in the MWI, but that is just my opinion.
Finally, the problems with both models that you mention can all be fixed with the random thought I had earlier, namely that time is a smooth vector field over state space. Quantum interference is the "smooth" part, and the Born rule does not get violated. The universe doesn't split up anymore, because all universes exist in state space. Essentially, time and state space form a dynamical system, with "now" being the moving point.
Post by: palsch on August 10, 2012, 03:01:34 pm
And the SUAC approach is also counterproductive: If people had stuck with the geocentrical model because it was precise enough, they would never have discovered large-scale gravity, simply because they wouldn't notice.The comparison here doesn't work at all.
Going back to the philosophy of science points, all valid and complete interpretation of quantum mechanics are indistinguishable as far as empirical results go, with the few exceptions regarding Bell's inequalities (and there it's a question of which set is valid). In particularly MW (if taken as complete; again, debatable) and Copenhagen interpretations are perfectly indistinguishable.
The comparison here isn't between a geocentric and heliocentric model, but between, say, a scientific realist and a logical positivist reading applied to any given theory. The mechanics and equations are identical in either, but the underlying meaning of those equations and mechanics (not their function, but their philosophical status) are different. I doubt that many people who worked (or work) with classical mechanics gave (or give) a flying fuck which philosophical school was right about the nature of theory when they were doing their calculations.
'Shut up and calculate' is based on the idea that quantum mechanics works, and that using it is more important than having a complete philosophical explanation of how it works. I would do the same work and get the same results being a MWI advocate or Copenhagen devotee. Most physicists aren't going to devote much time to the philosophical arguments that literally can't have any influence on their work.
Finally, the problems with both models that you mention can all be fixed with the random thought I had earlier, namely that time is a smooth vector field over state space. Quantum interference is the "smooth" part, and the Born rule does not get violated. The universe doesn't split up anymore, because all universes exist in state space. Essentially, time and state space form a dynamical system, with "now" being the moving point.I... I'm not what this actually means. Or if it means anything.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 10, 2012, 06:18:02 pm
Most physicists use Copenhagen interpretation language but broadly subscribe to the shut up and calculate (SUAC)
<3 you for introducing a new phrase into my lexicon. Also, beautiful posts!
Post by: Grek on August 11, 2012, 01:12:43 am
Post by: palsch on August 11, 2012, 11:19:27 am
palsch, what do you make of this (http://hanson.gmu.edu/worldhit.pdf) paper by Robin Hanson? While the notion of large measure worlds destroying small measure worlds is pretty disturbing, that interpretation does have the advantage of avoiding both collaspes and new physics to explain Born probabilities. Obviously, it still needs experimentally verified, but it looks promising to me at least.That paper actually has a pretty nice summary of the problem at the start.
Just from the paper, the 'mangling cut-off' is extremely arbitrary. It needs to be carefully tuned to some threshold of world size.
Intuitively it seems hard to keep the statistics working. He has to assume that decoherence between worlds isn't absolute and that they can still interfere with each other in order for larger worlds to mangle smaller ones. My problem with this should introduce strong local effects that will vary considerably in different events. The threshold is going to move depending on the event you are looking at, so deviating from the Born statistics at different times.
And arguably the level of interference after apparent decoherence may well be introducing new physics. Another aspect that would require extremely careful tuning, in balance with the mangling cut off.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 11, 2012, 05:05:20 pm
I've got three for you, right here off of wikipedia: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. ;)Those all seem perfectly falsifiable to me. IE, if they were dramatically wrong we'd discover pretty quickly when none of our predictions work.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 16, 2012, 09:16:20 pm
I've got three for you, right here off of wikipedia: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. ;)Those all seem perfectly falsifiable to me. IE, if they were dramatically wrong we'd discover pretty quickly when none of our predictions work.
No, because there's always the possibility that we simply got the laws wrong if that happens, and it could always be random chance when they do work.
Post by: Fenrir on August 16, 2012, 09:40:56 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 16, 2012, 09:51:07 pm
Post by: Fenrir on August 16, 2012, 09:53:55 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 17, 2012, 12:35:26 am
Temporarily forgot what month it is.It's still January, right?
Post by: Cthulhu on August 17, 2012, 12:44:51 am
The big thing is the nature of your presuppositions, specifically in the naturalism and parsimony ballparks. Contrast the scientist's "There is an objective reality shared by all observers" with the apologist's "An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being made everything"
Post by: Graknorke on August 17, 2012, 03:10:49 am
"An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being made everything"
I am sorry but this is absolutely impossible to be traits all possessed by any god, given the condition of the world right now. It could only be two of them maximum. Someone wrote a thing about it but I forgot.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 17, 2012, 04:17:22 am
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 17, 2012, 04:29:05 am
"An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being made everything"
I am sorry but this is absolutely impossible to be traits all possessed by any god, given the condition of the world right now. It could only be two of them maximum. Someone wrote a thing about it but I forgot.
His name was Epicurus, and the argument is known as the problem of evil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Epicurus)
In pictorial form. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2292)
Post by: Frumple on August 17, 2012, 07:55:14 am
Depends how you define "benevolent." There are plenty of ways to have all three, just that they all require God's morality to be different/superior/whatever to your own.Yeah... the fun one for me went thusly: In order to be omnibenevolent, the argument held, God must maximally possess the most fundamental good, i.e. that good which enables all other goods. That which enables all other goods (or to be more accurate, all things, period) is existence -- a thing must be before it can be something. Therefore the good of God -- the maximal, fundamental, good possessed by the divine -- is existence. In modern parlance, God is the fundamental particle (if we ever actually find it). Medieval theologians (or at least they're the ones I first ran into that were using this line of argument) basically stated omnibenevolence meant hardcore materialism -- the good of God is the good of existence -- and it gave me the giggles.
It also meant that the omnibenevolence of god is logically equal to omnipresence -- saying that "God is good" had the same meaning as saying "God is existent". All good, all existent, etc.
It was a neat and hilariously irreverent trick. "We'e got problems with the divine not matching with human morality! Let's define divine morality as something categorically different from human morality! No one will notice~" Which, being fair, no one really did for a while :P It's always been a good trick, if one that gets you smacked upside the head if you try it in a decent academic discussion. "I'm not talking about X, I'm talking about X, see? Yes, they're the exact same word, used in the exact same context, and generally kinda' insinuated to mean something similar, but they're actually completely different and utterly unconnected. Neat, huh? Solves alla d'problems!" And then your skull gets beat like a drum at a bongo festival, as it right and proper.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 17, 2012, 08:39:21 am
"Hey, look at this one writhe in pain! He totally just caught a horrific disease. Haha, this universe is awesome."
Post by: Prometheusmfd on August 17, 2012, 08:44:43 am
Personally, I think of any deities god or gods did exist, they'd probably have the same attitude toward humanity as Dwarf Fortress players have to their dwarves.
"Hey, look at this one writhe in pain! He totally just caught a horrific disease. Haha, this universe is awesome."
Wasn't there a fan theory that the player WAS Armok?
Post by: kaijyuu on August 17, 2012, 08:47:21 am
Post by: Graknorke on August 17, 2012, 10:29:56 am
I'm pretty sure that's canon by this point.Nompe, players are canon nobles. Toady said so somewhere I think. But you don't have to after all.
`"'Never trust anybody who uses quotes' I forgot who said this"` - Some guy who works on Gorillaz I think` - TvTropes.
Post by: brainfreez on August 17, 2012, 10:37:06 am
or Armok controlling the highest rank noble in the fort .
Post by: Criptfeind on August 17, 2012, 10:40:44 am
Post by: Fenrir on August 17, 2012, 11:47:21 am
Depends how you define "benevolent." There are plenty of ways to have all three, just that they all require God's morality to be different/superior/whatever to your own.If “benevolent” was altered to mean any arbitrary system of morality that God might happen to have, to say “God is perfectly benevolent,” is not meaningful (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShapedLikeItself). “God has the moral standards that God has.”
Besides, no one means that when they say “benevolent”. It is a word with a well-established meaning.
In pictorial form. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2292)Most people do care if the table is broken, but they grab the ball and insist that the table is not broken at all. “The table is perfect. You think it is broken because you do not understand the table.
Yes, we all have to presuppose things that we can't quite know for sure or things quickly dissolve into navel-gazing bullshit.Unfortunately, many people seem to take this to mean that they can presuppose whatever they like. They do not realize that presuppositions are a necessary evil, and they should not be increased beyond what is necessary, which is what religion does.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 17, 2012, 12:40:21 pm
In case it wasn't as clear as I'd hoped, I wasn't supporting that presupposition. Even disregarding the problem of evil, it's still not naturalistic or parsimonious. Presuppositional apologetics is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. "If you just assume God exists, all our arguments will make sense."
Post by: MrWiggles on August 17, 2012, 07:38:50 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on August 17, 2012, 10:28:25 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 18, 2012, 03:22:58 am
All this line of thinking points out is everyone has to have the same premises for any logical debate to take place. Which is kinda well... duh. Otherwise it's a circular argument as arguments are being built upon completely different and possibly exclusive bases.
You wanna effectively attack these arguments, rather than going "lol unfalsifiable"? Point out logical inconsistencies. Explain why they're advocating a unicorn that is both invisible and pink at the same time. Bring their cognitive dissonance to light. Any other approach is silly.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 18, 2012, 03:35:46 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 18, 2012, 06:12:23 am
Post by: Leafsnail on August 18, 2012, 07:35:21 am
Why do ya'll think solipsism has been brought up like, 80 times? It's not because people actually want to advocate it, but rather that saying "you're making baseless assumptions" is not pointing out anything new. Of course they're making baseless assumptions. So are you. Yours aren't "better," either.Wasn't the past page about how this false equivocation is wrong? There's a difference between a fundamental assumption that could only be wrong through coincidences happening all the time (we don't share the same objective reality but the realities we experience just happen to be exactly the same to all intents and purposes) and an assumption of something which could never be proven wrong even if it is wrong.
You wanna effectively attack these arguments, rather than going "lol unfalsifiable"? Point out logical inconsistencies. Explain why they're advocating a unicorn that is both invisible and pink at the same time. Bring their cognitive dissonance to light. Any other approach is silly.And then they tell you how dare you pick on my ideas, there's that other guy over there with ideas that are also flawed, also there are forms of my ideas which don't really say anything so they can't be contradictory so there.
It's the unbacked assumption that is the main problem.
Post by: Cthulhu on August 18, 2012, 03:35:41 pm
Post by: Fenrir on August 18, 2012, 04:16:24 pm
Why do ya'll think solipsism has been brought up like, 80 times? It's not because people actually want to advocate it, but rather that saying "you're making baseless assumptions" is not pointing out anything new. Of course they're making baseless assumptions. So are you. Yours aren't "better," either.Mine are not better; mine are fewer.
“We all assume an objective reality, therefore I can assume whatever I want,” is not valid reasoning, because, as I have said, we assume out of necessity, not because assumptions are good.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 11:19:22 am
Just so I can say I warned you three times, this is your second warning. OFFENSIVE MATERIAL AHEAD. This post is not in the spirit of this thread or discussion and is not intended to be considered a legitmate argument/discussion piece. It has examples of strawman tactics, slander, and overexaggeration. I repeat, don't open the spoiler tags.
(http://www.macromeme.com/dog/lewis-black.html) Final disclaimer: If you opened that, read it, and then got offended, I'm very sorry. I do not intend for you to be offended by this, but I wanted to present this position to Kaijyuu anyway. And, I did kind of warn you it was pretty offensive, so if you post back all pissed off, I'm going to call you an idiot for ignoring me. Just saying. Cuz, seriously, look at this post. It's ninety percent warning, one percent offensiveness.
Post by: Shinotsa on August 24, 2012, 11:34:26 am
In all seriousness though, the second one relates to what Kaijyuu was saying. While we can argue until we're blue in the face as to the number and quality of assumptions, that doesn't tend to work when one side prizes evidence while the other holds faith as a virtue. There are more than enough inconsistencies in any religion to make an argument against it. Through doing this I have helped a few good friends with their beliefs, either galvanizing them through putting thought into them or removing them completely for an alternative.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 11:41:53 am
And I basically believe the second one, and the eighth one. Why do I need to know the full and extensive geneology of a family of ancient dead Jewish people when you can just say, 'Hey, accept people for who they are, try to be a good person, don't try to bend others to your will, and seriously, try to be a good person.' I don't need omnipotent beings threatening me with metaphysical punishment to be a good person.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 24, 2012, 11:50:14 am
Your first link, for example: All his supporting points are attacking concepts promoted mainly by Christianity and a couple other major religions. But his conclusion is that ALL religion is incompatible with science, which is bogus. Deism's an excellent example of that, as it was created by Enlightenment scientists: A sentient something-or-other made the universe. No further assumptions or assertions past that. Absolutely nothing science can ever prove will go against it. For that religion (and infinite more possibilities), they are compatible.
Oh, and since I apparently missed some stuff from a while back, I'll respond to those:
Okay.Why do ya'll think solipsism has been brought up like, 80 times? It's not because people actually want to advocate it, but rather that saying "you're making baseless assumptions" is not pointing out anything new. Of course they're making baseless assumptions. So are you. Yours aren't "better," either.Mine are not better; mine are fewer.
Quote
“We all assume an objective reality, therefore I can assume whatever I want,” is not valid reasoning, because, as I have said, we assume out of necessity, not because assumptions are good.Necessity for what? If we accept the possibility of not living in an actual reality, you have no necessity of dealing with it.
And that first part is a strawman. No, justification for assuming whatever we want is not the point I'm making. Quite the opposite, actually. The point I'm making is by simply interacting with the world around you, you're just as guilty of a bullshit, baseless assumption as any religious person is. So please, keep off the high horse. That's all.
You don't really need to have the same premises to debate somebody.Yes you do, if you're attacking their conclusion. If you don't have the same premises, then you need to attack the premises you disagree with, by going and looking at the premises those premises are based on.
Debate 101 here. You either find out which fallacies they're using to reach an illogical conclusion, or you find out what basic ideas aren't shared between you. Anything else results in a fallacious argument.
Quote
The strongest weapon against presuppositionalists is reductio ad absurdum and that can be done without sharing their presumptions.This is pretty much what I'm advocating. Point out why their presumptions are absurd or contradictory.
I'd avoid appealing to consequences, though. "Because that conclusion would be silly" isn't a strong argument, at least alone.
Quote
There's a difference between a fundamental assumption that could only be wrong through coincidences happening all the time (we don't share the same objective reality but the realities we experience just happen to be exactly the same to all intents and purposes) and an assumption of something which could never be proven wrong even if it is wrong.There is, but an inductive argument cannot be made for empiricism since all the evidence supporting it is empirical. If you try to support it, you end up going in circles. It's built upon its own assumption. It's like asserting that someone is telling you the truth because they told you they were telling the truth.
Tell me, what does that line of thinking remind you of?
We're not disputing whether it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. We're disputing whether the information you're receiving about that duck can be trusted to be valid.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 11:56:05 am
Most of those are anti-christian. What I pointed out in the other thread is that many new atheists seem to make the mistake that religion = Christianity. You can bash, destroy, and ridicule Christianity until it's a smoldering pile of rubble, but that will do squat in discrediting the concept of religion as a whole.
Your first link, for example: All his supporting points are attacking concepts promoted mainly by Christianity and a couple other major religions. But his conclusion is that ALL religion is incompatible with science, which is bogus. Deism's an excellent example of that, as it was created by Enlightenment scientists: A sentient something-or-other made the universe. No further assumptions or assertions past that. Absolutely nothing science can ever prove will go against it. For that religion (and infinite more possibilities), they are compatible.
Indeed. This is a good point. Strangely enough, I found a lot of Muslim-hate when I found these, far more so than any other specific religion. Muslim hate is one of my pet peeves, because people assume that the minority of crazy extremists paint the whole religion as crazy extremists, when they are not. Then again, my first link makes a point about crazy extremists and religion being capable of excusing such behavior, however remote and tenuous the excuse might be.
Anyways, just wanted to share those with you. :P
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 11:58:37 am
Any questions? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-juhrw3LJ5RY/Tg8pj8QQSLI/AAAAAAAAACI/1xNuM6EMv70/s1600/any-questions-religion-science-history-knowledge-christianit-demotivational-poster-1253813662.png)
This is false and, ironically, extremely ignorant. There "Dark Ages" is a myth created by Renaissance idiots (Roman fanboys, all of them) and has no historical basis, not to mention that it originally just referred to the lack of knowledge about the early medieval years the Renaissance scholars had access to, and the inclusion of "scientific knowledge" into the term was just baseless corruption. Roman "science" stagnated during the latter half of the Empire's timeline, and the passage over to High Middle Ages instead saw a rise in scientific discoveries to a point that hadn't been seen in Europe since the earlier Roman years.
And this is of course disregarding the fact that during the Islamic Golden Age, the propagation of scientific knowledge and discovery was seen as one of the most important religious duties among Muslim rulers, and that the Renaissance people were all just as religious as ever before (Deism did not become common until the Enlightenment Era), meaning that even if there was such a thing as "the Dark Ages" it had very, very little to do with religion and even Christianity.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 12:05:35 pm
Any questions? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-juhrw3LJ5RY/Tg8pj8QQSLI/AAAAAAAAACI/1xNuM6EMv70/s1600/any-questions-religion-science-history-knowledge-christianit-demotivational-poster-1253813662.png)
This is false and, ironically, extremely ignorant. There "Dark Ages" is a myth created by Renaissance idiots (Roman fanboys, all of them) and has no historical basis, not to mention that it originally just referred to the lack of knowledge about the early medieval years the Renaissance scholars had access to, and the inclusion of "scientific knowledge" into the term was just baseless corruption. Roman "science" stagnated during the latter half of the Empire's timeline, and the passage over to High Middle Ages instead saw a rise in scientific discoveries to a point that hadn't been seen in Europe since the earlier Roman years.
And this is of course disregarding the fact that during the Islamic Golden Age, the propagation of scientific knowledge and discovery was seen as one of the most important religious duties among Muslim rulers, and that the Renaissance people were all just as religious as ever before (Deism did not become common until the Enlightenment Era), meaning that even if there was such a thing as "the Dark Ages" it had very, very little to do with religion and even Christianity.
This would make sense. After all, I don't recall Romans wearing plate armor and using windmills. The late Roman Empire(s) were pretty corrupt and stagnant, so it should come as no surprise that they'd regressed technologically as well. Also, thanks for the tidbit about the Islamic Golden Age, that's going into my 'Reasons you shouldn't hate Islam' file.
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 12:20:17 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 24, 2012, 12:23:24 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 12:27:48 pm
Mind = Blown (http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22320830.jpg)
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2012, 12:59:40 pm
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:10:15 pm
@scriver:
Mind = Blown (http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22320830.jpg)
...Sarcasm? I can never tell :-[
Post by: Hanslanda on August 24, 2012, 01:11:25 pm
@scriver:
Mind = Blown (http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22320830.jpg)
...Sarcasm? I can never tell :-[
No, it was truthful. I didn't know about the 'al' thing.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2012, 01:13:27 pm
Out of curiousity; has anyone here ever successfully convinced a religious person that they were wrong, and what happened next? I mean it's theoretically possible, but usually seems to occur when you have the zeitgeist of pondering how you life doesn't match up with your religion. I would postulate it's very hard to convince someone who hasn't recently had a traumatic event (not that that is, necessarily, by any means the best time to raise such questions) or some other cause of uncertainty, who is also willing to debate. In other words, anyone achieved this with someone who's content to some degree?I'm pretty sure it's rather hard, as you ain't going to be able to convinve the fundamentalists, and the beliefs of the more moderate factions are actually quite alright. (Depending on your definition of most of the words in the previous sentence, of course.)
Has anyone ever convinced an fundamentalist atheist that his view of religion might be wrong?
Post by: Siquo on August 24, 2012, 01:15:07 pm
Though pretty much nothing of the ideals that sparked the Islamic Golden Age has survived into modern day Islam.Which is too bad, but (and I'm usually the religion-defender around here) mostly the religion's fault.
Scriver, most of your images are strawmen, of course (bashing just one aspect of (christian) religion), yet still funny. You forgot one (http://macromeme.com/dog/science-religion-sudoku.html) that I liked, though :)
Out of curiousity; has anyone here ever successfully convinced a religious person that they were wrong, and what happened next?You can't disprove "religion" all at once. The only thing that does work is showing them actual proof of stuff they believe in, and where they are wrong (this will work if you can lead them up to it, so they can actually understand the proof given). They'll probably still believe in God, just not in that single thing anymore. If you can't dispriove the thing they believe in, you've got no reason/right/way to convince them otherwise, anyway.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2012, 01:21:28 pm
Though pretty much nothing of the ideals that sparked the Islamic Golden Age has survived into modern day Islam.Which is too bad, but (and I'm usually the religion-defender around here) mostly the religion's fault.
Scriver, most of your images are strawmen, of course (bashing just one aspect of (christian) religion), yet still funny. You forgot one (http://macromeme.com/dog/science-religion-sudoku.html) that I liked, though :)
Nope. The radicalization of the Islam was caused by a rather tragic experience for the entire islamic empire: "The invasion of The mongols."
Which happened in the 13the century.
Also, for the Christian Dark age being a black spot in scientific progress. It really is a fable. Quite a lot of Europe's most important architectural buildings where build then, and religion was a corner piece in keeping the large empires of among others Charle Mange toghether.
If you want a dark period caused by Christianity, skip a few centuries forward, to the sixtheenth century. That's the time of the inquisition, and the burning of witches.
Post by: Sheb on August 24, 2012, 01:25:07 pm
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:33:09 pm
Post by: palsch on August 24, 2012, 01:36:17 pm
Out of curiousity; has anyone here ever successfully convinced a religious person that they were wrong, and what happened next? I mean it's theoretically possible, but usually seems to occur when you have the zeitgeist of pondering how you life doesn't match up with your religion. I would postulate it's very hard to convince someone who hasn't recently had a traumatic event (not that that is, necessarily, by any means the best time to raise such questions) or some other cause of uncertainty, who is also willing to debate. In other words, anyone achieved this with someone who's content to some degree?Depends on the topic.
I used to focus strongly on creationism/evolution debates. There a certain subset of people are actually open to real debate. I wrote an essay on this a few years back. I can post the whole thing if people are interested, but a relevant section;
Quote
The final group, and the ones I'm interested in, are those who are genuinely interested in science, but who have been taught that they have to accept Creationism for religious reasons. These are the ones who seek out debates. They are genuinely curious and interested in the science. Most of the time they are also fairly angry or hostile, because they can't believe people accept such lies as evolution when the things they have been taught so obviously debunk it. These are the people you can actually talk with and win over.Personally I know of at least one case where I convinced someone their Young Earth position was wrong and got them to turn away from certain creationist authority figures they had been relying on (think Kent Hovind). In another I was contacted long after the debate when they had completely left the faith. They had messaged me to thank me for being a significant part of that (enough to track me down and message me after literal years), although I'm not sure what other factors were involved. That one made me a little uncomfortable.
The problem is that wining can still be painful. A lot of the time their belief in creationism is very closely tied up with their religion. Showing them that what they have been taught is bunk is likely to badly damage their trust in the authority figures who taught them that. That goes from their parents to their teachers to their ministers to their God. There are lots of people who lose their faith based on piddling details of evolution that they can no longer deny, but that they have been taught they must deny in order to be a Real True Christian. They can't imagine anything in between.
Post by: Hiiri on August 24, 2012, 01:43:01 pm
Most of those are anti-christian. What I pointed out in the other thread is that many new atheists seem to make the mistake that religion = Christianity. You can bash, destroy, and ridicule Christianity until it's a smoldering pile of rubble, but that will do squat in discrediting the concept of religion as a whole.
You're simply wrong. People attack Christianity the most, because it's usually the major religion in our societies. I assume most of us are from western countries.
Besides, biblical Christianity can be disproven, making it easy to attack.
Post by: Siquo on August 24, 2012, 01:45:19 pm
Nope. The radicalization of the Islam was caused by a rather tragic experience for the entire islamic empire: "The invasion of The mongols."Well, that is the reason behind the change in the religion, but it was the change in the religion that did most of the harm, not the invasion directly (IIRC).
Which happened in the 13the century.
Was it? I was under the impression that the recent radicalization of Islam was due to post-colonialism and the collapse of the socialist/Arab nationalist alternative.No, the mongols have kept quiet for a while now, we're talking 1300's here. :)
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 01:46:41 pm
Though pretty much nothing of the ideals that sparked the Islamic Golden Age has survived into modern day Islam.Which is too bad, but (and I'm usually the religion-defender around here) mostly the religion's fault.
Scriver, most of your images are strawmen, of course (bashing just one aspect of (christian) religion), yet still funny. You forgot one (http://macromeme.com/dog/science-religion-sudoku.html) that I liked, though :)
Also, wrong name, yo. I'll have you know I don't use pictoral strawmen, in fact, I craft all my strawmen with my own two hands!
...Sarcasm? I can never tell :-[
No, it was truthful. I didn't know about the 'al' thing.
Yay! This will go down in history as the first time I ever mindblew a person over the internet. :P
Post by: Leafsnail on August 24, 2012, 02:30:14 pm
The main thing about the first one is it actually makes an argument. "Why is it ok to ascribe motives to extremists and dismiss them out of hand", "extremism is a symptom of a deeper problem" and "science not having answers doesn't mean religion automatically has them" are all decent points that are often ignored.
Your first link, for example: All his supporting points are attacking concepts promoted mainly by Christianity and a couple other major religions.All religions to some extent must hold faith as a virtue, unless you can point me to a religion that provides scientific evidence for its claims. That is what the first comic is actually criticising - I see absolutely no element of it that only applies to Abrahamic religions.
You forgot one (http://macromeme.com/dog/science-religion-sudoku.html) that I liked, though :)Most of the others were too old and tired for me to find them funny, but this one is great.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 24, 2012, 02:41:58 pm
Something similiar would have happened even if the religion hasn't been in charge. A traumatizing event can seriously harm a nation.Nope. The radicalization of the Islam was caused by a rather tragic experience for the entire islamic empire: "The invasion of The mongols."Well, that is the reason behind the change in the religion, but it was the change in the religion that did most of the harm, not the invasion directly (IIRC).
Which happened in the 13the century.
For example, 9/11 and it's effect(and that off following law changes) on the American economy. Quite the same story.
The problem with bringing religion into the mix is that it makes it easier for things to become parts of the ideology, cultural heritage and such. That causes it to last longer, more often than not.
Also, religions and religious, like all other organistations, tend to do mean things when threatened.
Post by: Siquo on August 24, 2012, 03:19:23 pm
Also, religions and religious, like all other organistations, tend to do mean things when threatened.You've got a point; Religion is mostly a vehicle for anti-intellectualism, not the cause. There's a lot of atheist (non-religious) anti-intellectualism as well...
Food for thought.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 24, 2012, 03:31:32 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 24, 2012, 03:39:42 pm
Post by: scriver on August 24, 2012, 04:26:25 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 24, 2012, 07:14:49 pm
Out of curiousity; has anyone here ever successfully convinced a religious person that they were wrong, and what happened next? I mean it's theoretically possible, but usually seems to occur when you have the zeitgeist of pondering how you life doesn't match up with your religion. I would postulate it's very hard to convince someone who hasn't recently had a traumatic event (not that that is, necessarily, by any means the best time to raise such questions) or some other cause of uncertainty, who is also willing to debate. In other words, anyone achieved this with someone who's content to some degree?
While I can't say for certain there hadn't been any other motivators, I can also report a case. Much like Palsch, it was in a situation where actual debate was able to occur; myself and several others used to spend a lot of time on the FSM blog (not the forums, but responding in the actual blog comments; meant we dealt with the *really* crazy ones mostly). Anyway, one group of creationist christians started posting the usual "You're god is obviously fake, he's a mass of spaghetti!" and "You're all going to burn in hell" schtick. Most of them left after a little while, but one stuck around and started debating. As he was a YEC, a lot of his arguments involved things like arguing how you can't use carbon dating to determine the age of the planet, and evolution can't produce structures like the eye etc.
At that stage, I worked in a geochronology lab, so I was able to give him a very clear breakdown of how radioisotape dating worked, and we had another poster who worked as a microbiologist, who set him straight on his miscomprehensions there. Anyway, we eventually persuaded him that the idea of a Young Earth is farcial and that things like morality don't need a god, and that was the last we heard of him for 6 months.
When he came back, he said he had become an atheist, and wanted advice on how to reveal the fact to his devout mother. Apparently, after we had parted ways he'd realised that he didn't know as much about both the world and his own faith as he had thought, and had started doing some reading on the subject.
So it is possible, but it's rare, and it requires an open mind on the topic, something that is often lacking on both sides of the fence.
Post by: Descan on August 24, 2012, 08:10:29 pm
To get someone religious to become an ATHEIST, though... That takes time. Like, years, even. Piles of evidence, that they themselves have to, (and tend to) seek out themselves, reading from multiple sources. There might be one or two people that were large factors, usually celebratheists, like Hitchens or Dawkins, but usually it's on them to figure it out themselves.
Post by: Shinotsa on August 24, 2012, 09:46:56 pm
The girlfriend was a devout Catholic and... well let's leave that for another time. EVERYTHING with her is complicated :P
Post by: Osmosis Jones on August 24, 2012, 10:04:39 pm
It's extremely clear, simple, and non-confrontational.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 25, 2012, 02:23:52 am
Incidentally guys, if you do ever have to explain radioisotope dating to anyone, use this link (http://www.oldearth.org/radio-christian.htm).Is that Concordism? Seems like Concordism to me. While it might be a tad better than creationism, I still don't agree with it. It's just one other way of manipulating science and biblical intrepretations to accomplish a goal, ie showing that the Bible does indeed contain a scientific truth about the origin of the World. (Which it doesn't. At all.)
It's extremely clear, simple, and non-confrontational.
EDIT: Talking about the website, not the article itself. The article is fine.
Post by: palsch on August 25, 2012, 05:12:22 am
Incidentally guys, if you do ever have to explain radioisotope dating to anyone, use this link (http://www.oldearth.org/radio-christian.htm).I'd go straight to the original, (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) and yeah, used that since I had to learn radiometric dating myself back in secondary school.
It's extremely clear, simple, and non-confrontational.
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 25, 2012, 07:52:38 am
Post by: MrWiggles on August 25, 2012, 07:55:48 am
Post by: Moghjubar on August 25, 2012, 01:21:30 pm
Has anyone read this?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 25, 2012, 01:44:34 pm
Hrmm, came across this today... the points seem topical (apologies if its been linked before in thread) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_TotalismI haven't, but from what I've seen, it certainly applies to religious fractions.
Has anyone read this?
Post by: kaijyuu on August 25, 2012, 01:57:46 pm
Post by: Fenrir on August 25, 2012, 09:46:00 pm
Quote“We all assume an objective reality, therefore I can assume whatever I want,” is not valid reasoning, because, as I have said, we assume out of necessity, not because assumptions are good.Necessity for what? If we accept the possibility of not living in an actual reality, you have no necessity of dealing with it.
Well, it is not necessary to assume that my reality is not illusory, but it is necessary to assume that this reality is consistent. It seems to me that nothing whatever could be done if I did not, and my mind is not capable of discarding this belief anyway. I expect gravity to still be functioning the same way tomorrow, and for no better reason than it has worked every day of my life, but I could never make myself believe otherwise. I might chant it to myself all I like, but I could not make myself expect so.
So, yes, we should not presume that what we see is not all a sophisticated simulation an therefore not “actual reality”, but we can not stop assuming that whatever this is will keep behaving consistently. That is the principle assumtion that we must necessarily make, simply because we can not make our brains do anything else.
And that first part is a strawman. No, justification for assuming whatever we want is not the point I'm making.Perhaps it would have been more of flesh and less of straw if I had better put it. “We all assume an objective reality, therefore I can not be criticized for making more assumptions.”
Quite the opposite, actually. The point I'm making is by simply interacting with the world around you, you're just as guilty of a bullshit, baseless assumption as any religious person is. So please, keep off the high horse. That's all.I am not sure that I deserved such an accusative response, and I am also offended by your speciesism and cultural ignorance—I never find myself on a high horse (except for that one time in Tijuana), as I trust you can understand how awkward it would be for one quadrupedal mammal to attempt riding another.
The point is, I may perhaps be guilty of “bullshit”, as you put it, but the religious person is guilty of MOAR bullshit. Not only does he presume that his God exists and all the other assumptions necessary to support his religion, but—even I were to assume that this is not all an illusion—he also makes all of my assumptions: there is a reality beyond himself, and this reality is consistent.
So, if you mean by “keep off the high horse” that I mate with horses, you are mostly wrong. If you mean that I would be a hypocrite to criticize someone for making a baseless assumption, you are wrong. If you mean that I should not sneer at religious people, you might have noticed that I was not doing that in the first place.
Post by: Descan on August 25, 2012, 09:49:16 pm
Post by: lemon10 on August 25, 2012, 10:26:34 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 25, 2012, 10:31:47 pm
Well, it is not necessary to assume that my reality is not illusory, but it is necessary to assume that this reality is consistent. It seems to me that nothing whatever could be done if I did not, and my mind is not capable of discarding this belief anyway. I expect gravity to still be functioning the same way tomorrow, and for no better reason than it has worked every day of my life, but I could never make myself believe otherwise. I might chant it to myself all I like, but I could not make myself expect so.I'm pretty sure we could force ourselves; in fact, isn't dreaming exactly that? Kinda irrelevant I suppose though.
So, yes, we should not presume that what we see is not all a sophisticated simulation an therefore not “actual reality”, but we can not stop assuming that whatever this is will keep behaving consistently. That is the principle assumtion that we must necessarily make, simply because we can not make our brains do anything else.
I've been thinking a bit about this recently, and I guess I'll go off on a tangent about it.
One of the arguments for empiricism is "we have no evidence of it being false!" I question whether it's theoretically possible to have any evidence like that, barring "waking up" out of it and seeing, much like we do with dreams. How would we differentiate a "glitch in the matrix" (which would be evidence that this world is fake) from standard laws of the universe? The universe acts quite unintuitively in its extremes, such as with quantum mechanics and relativity. We have situations where it's possible to get different results from an experiment with the exact same input (though we can determine the probability of each result). If there were a glitch, how would we know?
You say the universe acts "consistently." I suppose that's true. But it's also true of any simulation we make ourselves; Mario going into the minus world may be a glitch, but it can be experimentally shown as consistently happening every time with the correct input.
Quote
Perhaps it would have been more of flesh and less of straw if I had better put it. “We all assume an objective reality, therefore I can not be criticized for making more assumptions.”We should look at this another way. Let's take the subjects at hand out of the picture for a moment, and just look at the logic.
- Conclusion A is built upon Premise X.
- Conclusion B is also built upon Premise X.
- Premise X is somehow faulty.
To criticize Conclusion B, attacking Premise X is probably a good idea. However, by doing so, Conclusion A is also undermined. So one cannot reject Conclusion B on the basis that Premise X is faulty while still supporting Conclusion A, when they're both built upon Premise X. Attempting to do so is blatant cognitive dissonance.
Back to our situation, empiricism and <insert religion here> are both built upon... well nothing actually, except "because I wanna believe it." As such, attacking a religion on its unfalsifiability while supporting empiricism (which I should remind you all of science is based upon) despite its unfalsifiability is fallacious. You can't move the goalposts like that.
So, you either reject both or find different arguments against religion. I suggest the latter, as there are plenty of other arguments.
Quote
The point is, I may perhaps be guilty of “bullshit”, as you put it, but the religious person is guilty of MOAR bullshit. Not only does he presume that his God exists and all the other assumptions necessary to support his religion, but—even I were to assume that this is not all an illusion—he also makes all of my assumptions: there is a reality beyond himself, and this reality is consistent."My beliefs don't make sense, but his make even less sense!"
Well okay. I can't argue against that. But still, not the strongest argument :D
Post by: Grek on August 25, 2012, 10:55:51 pm
1. Premise: An objective reality exists.
2. Therefore, from 1, Empericism.
3. Therefore, from 1, God.
but rather like:
1. Premise: An objective reality exists.
2. Therefore, from 1, Empericism.
3. Premise: The objective reality from 1 is divinely created.
4. Therefore, from 1 & 3, God.
or even
1a. Premise: An objective reality exists.
2a. Therefore, from 1, Empericism.
1b. Premise: The world is divinely created.
2b. Therefore, from 1b, God.
The point is that religion requires additional (or even merely alternative) assumptions that philosophical realism (and thus empericism) does not. Not only that, but those assumptions are different in both scale and in kind from the assumptions required by empericism. The arguments against religion attack those assumptions, not all assumptions required by religion and certainly not the ones shared with empericism.
Post by: Criptfeind on August 25, 2012, 11:00:28 pm
We should look at this another way. Let's take the subjects at hand out of the picture for a moment, and just look at the logic.
- Conclusion A is built upon Premise X.
- Conclusion B is also built upon Premise X.
- Premise X is somehow faulty.
To criticize Conclusion B, attacking Premise X is probably a good idea. However, by doing so, Conclusion A is also undermined. So one cannot reject Conclusion B on the basis that Premise X is faulty while still supporting Conclusion A, when they're both built upon Premise X. Attempting to do so is blatant cognitive dissonance.
I think this is ridiculous. And here is a a way of pointing out why.
- Conclusion A is built upon Premise X.
- Conclusion B is also built upon Premise X.
- Premise X is correct.
The differences come from the universe randomly realigning itself to change from moment to moment what is right, this is not something we remember because our memories also shift, but not our memories of our conclusions.
Five points to the first person who gets the point I am trying to make.
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2012, 11:03:13 pm
Quote
"My beliefs don't make sense, but his make even less sense!"It's a strong argument when there's not a choice of "makes sense"... just varying levels of not making sense.
Well okay. I can't argue against that. But still, not the strongest argument :D
If there's no good (not in the moral sense, here, but rather good as the desirable), then your best position is to maximally minimize the bad. Least of all possible evils, etc.
S'far as my personal metaphysical aesthetics go, that's the ideal. Occam's dingy (can't remember if it's the actual formulation of the Razor or something else the guy said, eh): Multiply our entities to the most minimal extent possible. Find the answer that is least bullshit, because you're not going to escape the bullshit :P
Post by: kaijyuu on August 25, 2012, 11:07:52 pm
Let's dig a little deeper and see the common thread of both arguments.
1a. Premise: ??? (conclusion has no supporting arguments and is unfalsifiable)
2a. Therefore, An objective reality exists.
3a. Therefore, Empericism.
1b. Premise: ??? (conclusion has no supporting arguments and is unfalsifiable)
2b. Therefore, the world is divinely created.
3b. Therefore, God.
Point is, if you dig deep enough, they're both founded on nothing but straight, arbitrary, baseless belief. So pointing out that one is based upon straight, arbitrary, baseless belief undermines both, not just one. Attacking 1b also attacks 1a.
Quote
Five points to the first person who gets the point I am trying to make.Chewbacca defense?
No really, I forget the technical name of this fallacy but I think this is the one you're accusing me of:
If not A, then not B.
If not A, then not C.
Therefore, if not B, then not C.
If that's your accusation, then it doesn't apply to me since I'm not making the fallacious conclusion (if not B then not C). My conclusion is "if not A, then not B nor C."
Post by: Criptfeind on August 25, 2012, 11:21:06 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on August 25, 2012, 11:26:00 pm
Unfalsifiable arguments are the "divide by 0" of logic. They mean literally whatever you want them to mean. However, that doesn't mean it's invalid; all our basic ideas stand on their own, and you can only dig so deep. No matter what you're arguing, if you dig to the bottom, you'll find a premise with zero supporting arguments. Our basic assumptions and instincts about life, the universe, and everything.
My argument here isn't that you should accept every single unfalsifiable idea. My argument is the fact that they're unfalsifiable is neither a supports nor undermines them. If you do a clean sweep of every unsupported argument and call it false, you just rejected all of reality. "I think therefore I am" is the only piece of knowledge generally accepted to be knowledge without any further support (and there are plenty of philosophers who argue against that too). You make assumptions, I make assumptions, we all do simply to function at all.
Pointing out that something is unfalsifiable is fine. It removes an argument's legitimacy if the person they're arguing against doesn't share the assumption. It calls into question the argument's legitimacy altogether. But it does NOT immediately prove it as wrong.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 25, 2012, 11:29:51 pm
Please don't hate me. (http://macromeme.com/dog/god-meme-comp.html)
Post by: Ship of Freaks on August 25, 2012, 11:37:37 pm
God is the greatest dictator, if you accept the fiction that he created the world and also created mankind. If God is a reality, then man is a slave, a puppet. All the strings are in his hands, even your life. Then there is no question of any enlightenment. Then there is no question of there being any Gautam the Buddha, because there is no freedom at all. He pulls the strings, you dance; he pulls the strings, you cry; he pulls the strings, you start murders, suicide, war. You are just a puppet and he is the puppeteer.
Then there is no question of sin or virtue, no question of sinners and saints. Nothing is good and nothing is bad, because you are only a puppet. A puppet cannot be responsible for its actions. Responsibility belongs to someone who has the freedom to act.
Either God can exist or freedom, both cannot exist together.
That is the basic implication of Friedrich Nietzsche's statement: God is dead, therefore man is free.
No theologian, no founder of religions thought about this, that if you accept God as the creator, you are destroying the whole dignity of consciousness, of freedom, of love. You are taking all responsibility from man, and you are taking all his freedom away. You are reducing the whole of existence to just the whim of a strange fellow called God."
Post by: lemon10 on August 25, 2012, 11:44:11 pm
I probably shouldn't do this. But I can't resist myself. :/Meh, many of the others are much better, this one for instance (http://macromeme.com/dog/christianity-explained-4chan-terms.html).
Please don't hate me. (http://macromeme.com/dog/god-meme-comp.html)
Posting that one is probably stupider then posting yours (since this one is probably more insulting).
Post by: Frumple on August 25, 2012, 11:49:13 pm
Last bit is particularly annoying, though. To say no theologian, no founder of religions thought of that spiel -- the sheer ignorance of that statement. It's galling. Theology has been aware of that line of thought for millennium. Fairly sure it was one of the points directly responded to by... Aquinas, I think? Maybe Augustine. The later of the two, anyway. Pretty sure it was one of those, in this question/answer type dealio th'fellow did that's pretty well known. Something close enough in concept to fit, anyway, if my memory's not failing me. Which it might be, but still. Saying modern theologians aren't aware of the implications of Nietzsche is just... gah. Gah, I say.
Post by: Ship of Freaks on August 26, 2012, 12:04:33 am
just throwing it out there
He (called Osho since you asked, just look it up) probably means something along the lines of "this would never occur to most of the sorts of theologians, etc., who want to believe in God." He's not exactly the type to thoroughly research what philosophers think they know, and what they don't. Perhaps he's just making the point that most people who believe in God couldn't accept this basic implication of their beliefs.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 01:14:30 am
Also note that that's an argument only against a literal interpretation of God, and a God that directly intervenes in human society.
It makes a good counterargument to "God acts in mysterious ways though"
Post by: Grek on August 26, 2012, 02:31:14 am
Nobody is saying that all unfalsifiable premises are wrong. That's completely missing the point of the scientific method requiring falsifiablity. In reality, you're looking at three different principles and mangling them all together into one and attacking that. Don't do that.
The principles are, in order:
1. Philosophical realism. Basically, the assumption that reality exists independant of all observers is unaltered by alterations of any observer's perceptions of the underlying reality. This is something that's agreed upon by basically everyone, except for the solipsists, who don't get a say on account of the fact they don't think the other debaters actually exist.
2. Inductive reasoning. Basically, the notion that you can predict future events by extrapolating from past events, or specific events from general rules. It's the "The sun will rise tomorrow because it's risen every other morning before that." sort of reasoning that, while technically invalid, is still used by basically everyone.
3. The principle of parsimony, which says that you have to justify every additional assumption you make with extra explanatory power in order to make up for the resulting loss of soundness in your theory that comes with every premise that you need to assume instead of deducing from first principles.
#3 is the one being used to argue against religion. #1 is indeed a premise, and #2 does indeed follow from #1 after a bit of ciphering, but that doesn't mean that you should be using #3 to be saying "#1 is invalid! Science is wrong!"
The principle of parsimony requires only that you justify each additional unfalsifiable premise. It doesn't mean that you can't have any, it just means that they have to be worth it. And philosophical realism is worth it, since you have to accept that, at least provisionally, in order to talk about reality at all.
Post by: lemon10 on August 26, 2012, 03:02:59 am
You know, the same counts for science. If all things are based on a deterministic interaction of particles, then whatever you do has been predetermined by the boundary conditions of the universe. As such, free will doesn't exist, nor do other human defined things, like crime, blame, ... The only thing there's is an illusion of free will.I have to disagree. Assuming that god is a truly omniscient being, then when he created the universe, he already knew exactly what would happen at every step in it. When he created the universe, he already knew Adam and Eve would eat the apple. He already knew how it would happen. Hell, he even knew how exactly he would interact with the world and that he would flood it 4000 (I might be wrong on that date) years later, and he knew how exactly the world would be today.
Also note that that's an argument only against a literal interpretation of God, and a God that directly intervenes in human society.
It makes a good counterargument to "God acts in mysterious ways though"
That said, the bible says there is an omniscient god, but if you read it, then they clearly put limits on his knowledge (eg. when they hide in the garden of eden he is kind of looking around for Adam and Eve, he changes his mind (which an omniscient being wouldn't do)). So the only real conclusions are (assuming he is real and such), A) he is either omniscient and lying through his teeth numerous times in the bible and massively manipulating people or B) He says he is omniscient, but is kind of lying and bragging about himself (which is a much nicer possibility then A).
Post by: Meansdarling on August 26, 2012, 03:10:57 am
Man!, That's a good one. I had to send that to my brother, he'll love it.I probably shouldn't do this. But I can't resist myself. :/Meh, many of the others are much better, this one for instance (http://macromeme.com/dog/christianity-explained-4chan-terms.html).
Please don't hate me. (http://macromeme.com/dog/god-meme-comp.html)
Posting that one is probably stupider then posting yours (since this one is probably more insulting).
OT: I'm happy for people who have faith and better lives because of it. I don't have faith in a deity. I'm a bit envious of the "belonging to a group feeling" that comes with church and fellow believers, but I find church itself to be fairly repellant. I'm picky.
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 26, 2012, 03:13:54 am
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2012, 03:29:50 am
Post by: Hiiri on August 26, 2012, 04:24:19 am
There are a lot of hobbies one can pick up for the group feeling/sense of purpose.
Also, how does "having faith" (belief without evidence) improve life quality?
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2012, 04:31:38 am
I really wish I had that kind of drive (Don't really mind for the tropical disease though. :P ).
As for quality of life, studies consistently shows that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer. Knowing/thinking that someone got your back and is watching out for you must be a great stress reliever.
Post by: lemon10 on August 26, 2012, 04:37:54 am
Isnt this where free will as a sort of test comes in? This semms to be a feature of many religions - you have to use your free will to demonstrate faith to make it worthwhile in the eyes of a God... omnipotent beings seem insecure.
Quote from: Dictionary.com defintion of free will
the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.As you can see, assuming a omniscient god, then he knows what you will do, and there is no such thing as free will.
Of course, most Christians don't actually believe god is omniscient (since they don't think he knows exactly what you will do), which is the only way free will could work.
EDIT: Amusing macromeme comic (http://macromeme.com/dog/yggdrasil.html) (which for once in this thread isn't really pro Aethism).
Post by: Hiiri on August 26, 2012, 05:04:43 am
I really wish I had that kind of drive (Don't really mind for the tropical disease though. :P ).
Guess what, religious people waste their lives sitting on their asses watching football all day just like the rest of us. :P
It doesn't require a belief in supernatural to have that drive. Science can give it to you just as well.
As for quality of life, studies consistently shows that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer. Knowing/thinking that someone got your back and is watching out for you must be a great stress reliever.
Yes, I've heard of this. Somewhat skeptical. Sounds like a study: "Increased ice cream sales cause more shark attacks" or "Homosexuality linked to higher death rates in central Africa."
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2012, 05:13:32 am
As for faith/well-being link.
1 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1386637)
2 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2136801)
3 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.00109/abstract)
P.S. I'm on a campus computer, I hope you can access those as well.
Post by: scriver on August 26, 2012, 05:59:22 am
Post by: MrWiggles on August 26, 2012, 06:12:09 am
And that is why I'm going to create a religion of loving, tolerance, and reason!I dont think you can. I think you can create a philosophy sure, but not a religion.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 06:29:40 am
It's perfectly possible. There are quite a few actually. There's just a lot of people who are bound to misinterpret things for their own gain, or just out of sheer stupidity, or some other reason.And that is why I'm going to create a religion of loving, tolerance, and reason!I dont think you can. I think you can create a philosophy sure, but not a religion.
Post by: scriver on August 26, 2012, 07:51:34 am
And that is why I'm going to create a religion of loving, tolerance, and reason!I dont think you can. I think you can create a philosophy sure, but not a religion.
If you build a community around a philosophy, it becomes a religion. As I see the term, at least.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 07:53:18 am
Yeah, religions are tricky things to define. I'm pretty sure you don't even need to have a god.If you build a community around a philosophy, it becomes a religion. As I see the term, at least.And that is why I'm going to create a religion of loving, tolerance, and reason!I dont think you can. I think you can create a philosophy sure, but not a religion.
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2012, 09:29:07 am
Post by: Micro102 on August 26, 2012, 09:38:46 am
Post by: Criptfeind on August 26, 2012, 09:58:29 am
And that is why I'm going to create a religion of loving, tolerance, and reason!
That sure worked out for Jesus.
And the God Emperor of Mankind.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 10:13:59 am
That sure worked out for Jesus.Tolerent? Maybe. Loving? In name, maybe. Reasonable? Nope.
Quote
And the God Emperor of Mankind.Not tolerant, not loving, and not reasonable. Emps advocated the oppression of psykers and abhumans, hated the xeno, and didn't listen to any point of view but his own. That last part is even what lead to his downfall, since he wouldn't listen to his psyker clone-son-thing Magnus the Red.
This is opposed to the Interex, who were tolerant and reasonable. They let their people know about the dangers of KAYOS, unlike the Imperium, and this kept them much safer from it since no one with actual knowledge of what Chaos entails would want to join up. They allied with any peaceful alien races they could find, which made them stronger. And it would have worked out if not for the Imperium conquering them.
Seriously, the Emperor absolutely sucked at his job. The only reason it went so well in the first place was that he was so unbelievably powerful, thanks to his psyker powers no less, the hypocrite.
Post by: scriver on August 26, 2012, 10:34:29 am
Buddhism.
I'm not sure there's very many Buddhist branches that don't believe in all kinds of spirits and supernatural beings, though, even if just a handful of them outright believes in some kind of god or god-like spirit.
That sure worked out for Jesus.Tolerent? Maybe. Loving? In name, maybe. Reasonable? Nope.
J-Man himself may not have been(/will be) all that nice, but the point is that the philosophy he told his followers to behave acording to was. His followers have to be ever tolerant, ever loging, ever caring of everyone else no matter who thewly are or what they've done, or no Heaven for them. That's pretty much his message in a nutshell.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 10:43:46 am
J-Man himself may not have been(/will be) all that nice, but the point is that the philosophy he told his followers to behave acording to was. His followers have to be ever tolerant, ever loging, ever caring of everyone else no matter who thewly are or what they've done, or no Heaven for them. That's pretty much his message in a nutshell.In my experience, most Christians would disagree, in action if not in word.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 10:50:53 am
It's the central message in the New Testament though. You should try to be tolerant, help everyone ,... .J-Man himself may not have been(/will be) all that nice, but the point is that the philosophy he told his followers to behave acording to was. His followers have to be ever tolerant, ever loging, ever caring of everyone else no matter who thewly are or what they've done, or no Heaven for them. That's pretty much his message in a nutshell.In my experience, most Christians would disagree, in action if not in word.
Keep in mind that Christianity has an imperfect God in the new testament. The divine part makes some mistakes and can be reasoned over by ...(can't remember the prophet's name) during the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra (Which he just planned to raze completely).
Jezus himself has the enough examples, and was also nailed to the cross, which you don't expect to happen to the manifestation of a God.
Also, forget Heaven. God had no sense of scale and reserved way to few places.
Post by: Scoops Novel on August 26, 2012, 01:36:51 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ahem. Too much time on the lexicanum. Out of interest, how many wars have been fought internally and outside it over Buddhism?
Post by: Criptfeind on August 26, 2012, 01:42:21 pm
J-Man himself may not have been(/will be) all that nice, but the point is that the philosophy he told his followers to behave acording to was. His followers have to be ever tolerant, ever loging, ever caring of everyone else no matter who thewly are or what they've done, or no Heaven for them. That's pretty much his message in a nutshell.In my experience, most Christians would disagree, in action if not in word.
That's the point.
Post by: kaijyuu on August 26, 2012, 01:52:35 pm
There are so many different religions, and all those religions are separated into many branches with many views.In my eyes, that means that at least 90% of the people in the world are wrong about their religion.If we look at probability and give each equal weight, the chance of any one religion being "right" is literally 0%. The set that contains "everything we don't know" is infinitely large.
Due to probability being funky, that doesn't mean one of them can't be right. If you've got 1 red bead, and infinite blue beads, the chance of picking any one bead at random and getting the red one is 0, but the red one still exists. And if you trust Douglas Adams, "infinitely small chances" are actually pretty likely :P
Re: Religious people being happier.
This reminds me of the ol' "ignorance is bliss" thing. There are "happy" lies. Coming to terms with true transience is a tough thing for most people, so the eternal life idea is mighty tempting, and buying into it means avoiding a LOT of worry.
Plus, religion is easy. Morality is spelled out for them (mostly). The purpose of life is spelled out for them. All the while, the rest of us are worrying about the details of what we "really" value. We don't have an arbitrary authority telling us what to do, so we're naturally a bit more stressed (especially since these are big questions).
We'd all be a bit happier if we never worried about any of this stuff and had our ideas handed to us, but most people wouldn't say that's a better existence.
Post by: MorleyDev on August 26, 2012, 02:13:01 pm
So no, no I don't think religious people are happier, or that I'd be happier with a religion. I think believing in that kind of thing would just make me more miserable. I don't see how believing this life to be nothing but a test makes it more meaningful, and reckon the notion utterly robs existence of any meaning. Is this all there is? I really hope so.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 02:15:25 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 02:18:00 pm
Jezus opposed that during his talks with the ... (Can't remember the name).
Religious people are happy, and so are drunkards. Whether something makes you happy or not is irrelevant to it being true or actually good for you.You know, some people could take insult at that comparison.
Also, just FYI, most kinds of atheism count as a religion.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 02:22:19 pm
You know, some people could take insult at that comparison.They can take insult all they want, it is not my concern that they find offense.
Quote
Also, just FYI, most kinds of atheism count as a religion.As much as I don't want to have this conversation yet again, no it doesn't.
Post by: MorleyDev on August 26, 2012, 02:23:32 pm
Define religion:
1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2) Details of belief as taught or discussed.
Definition 1 is instantly right out. Definition 2 is arguable, but that makes things like Gravity a "belief as taught or discussed" so seems pretty irrelevant :)
Post by: Ship of Freaks on August 26, 2012, 02:29:41 pm
Spoiler: tl;dr (click to show/hide)
Post by: Siquo on August 26, 2012, 02:33:52 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 02:35:53 pm
Unfortunately for you, it does. It all depends on which definition of religion you want to use, and also, which kind of atheism.QuoteAlso, just FYI, most kinds of atheism count as a religion.As much as I don't want to have this conversation yet again, no it doesn't.
Quote
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Some kinds of atheism clearly fit in here.
Only in Christianity, and even then what if you kill yourself in a way that did good? Or don't kill yourself but just don't fight to live? Is giving up when you have Cancer suicide? Is going into a burning building to rescue a child, expecting you won't survive, suicide? And then you have Sheol, the idea that Hell is just a life "without God"...and why would a kind and loving god punish you like that? And if god isn't kind and loving, why do they deserve worship?
That's why you got interpretations of Christianity which basically urge you to do whenever you can*, whitout any kind of selfless goal(like getting into heaven) and while taking the risk that you yourself will get into problems for it.
*No forcing or anything
Post by: MorleyDev on August 26, 2012, 02:35:57 pm
Sure, on the longest time scale you won't matter, but on a long enough time scale even the stars will die out. And last I checked, we don't live on that time scale, we never shall. We live for at most 100 short years, and even genetics will breed us entirely out of the gene pool via dilution in preciously few generations (32), those are our time scale, all we need care about is our life and what immediately follows it. Let the gods, if they exist, worry about infinite. We have now to deal with.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 26, 2012, 02:38:13 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 02:42:56 pm
Pretty sure it was Syphilis that drove Nietzsche insane. And surely people would rather be accidents than puppets? Accidents have no expectations, no prior demands, they have the freedom to carve their own path.People are not accidents. They are a logical reactions caused by the boundary conditions of the universe, with no real significance in the universe. In fact, in a million years, all we will be is a chemical trace on a barren planet(Due to the steady warming off the sun, not global warming).
Sure, on the longest time scale you won't matter, but on a long enough time scale even the stars will die out. And last I checked, we don't live on that time scale, we never shall. We live for at most 100 short years, and even genetics will breed us entirely out of the gene pool via dilution in preciously few generations (32), those are our time scale, all we need care about is our life and what immediately follows it. Let the gods, if they exist, worry about infinite. We have now to deal with.
Nevertheless, for the proper functioning off human society, we believe that free will is more than an illusion, and that our silly little lives do have some significance. Said lie is one that is automatically accepted by the human psyche, and if you explain it by a divine creator or just by not thinking about it, it doesn't really matter.
Well, depending on how consciousness works, we could very well have infinity to contend with. If it's caused by the pattern of your mind, then inevitably random chance is going to assemble your mind infinitely many times over the course of an infinite timescale.Entropy, my friend. There's no infinitive timescale, depending on which way the universe evolves, we might be halfway towards it's end already.
Also, while space might be practically infinite, the amount of energy, and therefore mass is not. So the chance of your mind appearing twice is still extremely small.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 02:44:49 pm
How in the world does "there isn't a god" fit into that? It is a singular point, not a collection in any sense, excluded by definition.QuoteReligion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.Some kinds of atheism clearly fit in here.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 26, 2012, 02:47:30 pm
Post by: MorleyDev on August 26, 2012, 02:50:20 pm
People are not accidents. They are a logical reactions caused by the boundary conditions of the universe, with no real significance in the universe. In fact, in a million years, all we will be is a chemical trace on a barren planet(Due to the steady warming off the sun, not global warming).
Depends upon your definition of accident. For something to be an accident it requires the actor to be capable of intent. So no, I'll grant humanity's origins as primordial ooze by definition can't be an accident because nothing capable of intent was involved to begin with. Evolution cannot hold intent, genetics act more on that scale as forces. It has no more intent than the gravity does as it pulls the object down.
Like wise, Free will doesn't exist on a macro scale. Actions stem from the boundary conditions of the universe. But for the day to day, for our lives, that doesn't ultimately matter.
It's simply a matter of the scale upon which one is viewing the universe. Ours is not sufficient a scale for this kind of thing to matter as more than an interesting thought exercise.
Still not seeing the existential horror people find in all of this.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 02:52:03 pm
but individual particles have a non zero chance of being in any location you can name. The odds involved are mind bogglingly small, but assuming time itself doesn't cease to exist, it is inevitable that every potential organization of the universe will occur eventually. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't work when classical mechanics no longer apply.Being that time is relative and that the universe is headed towards a heat death, we can say with some measure of certainty that time will eventually cease to exist and did not exist once "before". As temporal beings, comprehending a lack of time is something intrinsically difficult.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 26, 2012, 02:55:12 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on August 26, 2012, 02:58:10 pm
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 26, 2012, 03:00:13 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 03:01:36 pm
How could time cease to exist? Even if the universe has zero free energy, that wouldn't mean that time doesn't exist. In fact, doesn't time move faster as gravity gets weaker?Time would not cease to exist. It would simply be entirely and utterly meaningless, because everything would have reached the lowest organisation it could get. All the energy would be spread out, and there would be no chance for anything to happen, at all.
but individual particles have a non zero chance of being in any location you can name. The odds involved are mind bogglingly small, but assuming time itself doesn't cease to exist, it is inevitable that every potential organization of the universe will occur eventually. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't work when classical mechanics no longer apply.Ah, good old Quantum mechanics. However after a certain amount of time, even particles cease to exist. While under our current intrepretation the spontanous formation of Earth out of nothing is possible, it is however, extremely unlikely.
What is time for the propose of this conversation anyway? I am lost.10 PM, sadly not interested, no idea, me too.
Post by: Criptfeind on August 26, 2012, 03:03:15 pm
Not quite sure what you're askingYou are asking how it can cease to exist. But what actually is it? Depending on your definition of time the answer might not be the same.
What actually is time? Especially given a heat death situation.
10 PMAlso my watch says 3. Explain that one atheists. Gods miracle.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 03:04:23 pm
How could time cease to exist? Even if the universe has zero free energy, that wouldn't mean that time doesn't exist. In fact, doesn't time move faster as gravity gets weaker?Time is a factor of gravity, which is a factor of matter. By the time heat death happens, all of the universe's matter will have collapsed into black holes, which will eventually evaporate without having additional matter introduced to them. "No" matter, no energy, no time. Nothing, essentially. For all intents and purposes, time has ceased to be.
Granted, there is little point on speculating about it since humanity will almost certainly be long dead by then.
Post by: Eagle_eye on August 26, 2012, 03:20:12 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2012, 03:22:37 pm
Probably. What we know about this gets very fuzzy and pure hypothesis after heat death.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on August 26, 2012, 03:23:50 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on August 26, 2012, 03:55:39 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 04:22:18 pm
What about the quantum improbability thingy?Yeah, that's kinda the problem, and also the reason Entropy is a theory, not a law. There are millions way to get things disorganized, but only a few to get things more organized, At the moment when you reach max disorganisation, the chances of going up are much larger.
Post by: Blacksmith on August 26, 2012, 04:26:13 pm
What about the quantum improbability thingy?Yeah, that's kinda the problem, and also the reason Entropy is a theory, not a law. There are millions way to get things disorganized, but only a few to get things more organized, At the moment when you reach max disorganisation, the chances of going up are much larger.
Uh... no. Entropy is a property, defined by a law.
That's like saying length is a theory.
Even then, Entropy is tightly tied to laws moreso than theories. The only theory that even really binds close to it is information theory, no? Just, overall, a weird statement.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on August 26, 2012, 04:30:31 pm
I meant that the fact that Entropy always increases is a theory, not a law...What about the quantum improbability thingy?Yeah, that's kinda the problem, and also the reason Entropy is a theory, not a law. There are millions way to get things disorganized, but only a few to get things more organized, At the moment when you reach max disorganisation, the chances of going up are much larger.
Uh... no. Entropy is a property, defined by a law.
That's like saying length is a theory.
Post by: Blacksmith on August 26, 2012, 04:31:38 pm
Also, good theories tend, on average, to be stronger than laws, since theories can take into account new data and predict future exceptions, while laws need to be rewritten should observations change...
Post by: kaijyuu on August 26, 2012, 04:44:50 pm
We've broken Newton's "laws" but they're still called laws. Laws are artifacts from the Enlightenment era, where we thought we could describe the universe in a simple set of hard rules. Same reason elements are called "elements" despite being far from elemental.
So yeah. Irrelevant distinction. They're both rulesets we use to describe the universe.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 26, 2012, 05:56:41 pm
You say the universe acts "consistently." I suppose that's true. But it's also true of any simulation we make ourselves; Mario going into the minus world may be a glitch, but it can be experimentally shown as consistently happening every time with the correct input.Fenrir already addressed the "ooh maybe we're in a computer!" possibility: it doesn't matter. In the slightest. My reality is my reality even if it's in a computer or someone's imagination. There would be a problem if the laws were inconsistent, but the way to approach that is to assume the laws are consistent and modify that view if it turns out they aren't (eg: if gravity suddenly reverses direction I will revise my belief).
You seem to be positing that the universe might be very, very slightly inconsistent (quantum events may occasionally go the wrong way!) but I put it to you that if the universe is very very slightly inconsistent, to the extent that we can't even measure it, then it doesn't matter at all. It might as well be consistent for our purposes.
Back to our situation, empiricism and <insert religion here> are both built upon... well nothing actually, except "because I wanna believe it."Fenrir spent a good while explaining the difference and you respond like this? I'll state the difference one more time.
An axiom that is clearly required in order to get anywhere, that can immediately be revised if it turns out to be untrue (possibilities: if gravity reverses, or conservation of momentum suddenly stops applying, or energy starts being created out of nowhere, or the speed of light in a vacuum changes).
vs
An axiom that has no clear basis and no possible method of falsification plus the previous axiom.
Can you really see no way in which you could attack one position but not the other once you remove your oversimplification?
Post by: kaijyuu on August 26, 2012, 06:31:55 pm
Preachin' to the choir here, buddy. My whole rant that you took that line out of was just some supporting arguments for empiricism being unfalsifiable; asking for evidence of solipsism is pretty much identical to asking for evidence for atheism. That was the point I was making (and to no one in particular).You say the universe acts "consistently." I suppose that's true. But it's also true of any simulation we make ourselves; Mario going into the minus world may be a glitch, but it can be experimentally shown as consistently happening every time with the correct input.Fenrir already addressed the "ooh maybe we're in a computer!" possibility: it doesn't matter. In the slightest. My reality is my reality even if it's in a computer or someone's imagination. There would be a problem if the laws were inconsistent, but the way to approach that is to assume the laws are consistent and modify that view if it turns out they aren't (eg: if gravity suddenly reverses direction I will revise my belief).
You seem to be positing that the universe might be very, very slightly inconsistent (quantum events may occasionally go the wrong way!) but I put it to you that if the universe is very very slightly inconsistent, to the extent that we can't even measure it, then it doesn't matter at all. It might as well be consistent for our purposes.
Quote
Axioms are things that we claim to be self evident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) I think you're confusing those and hypothesis, because that's what you're describing in the first part.Back to our situation, empiricism and <insert religion here> are both built upon... well nothing actually, except "because I wanna believe it."Fenrir spent a good while explaining the difference and you respond like this? I'll state the difference one more time.
An axiom that is clearly required in order to get anywhere, that can immediately be revised if it turns out to be untrue (possibilities: if gravity reverses, or conservation of momentum suddenly stops applying, or energy starts being created out of nowhere, or the speed of light in a vacuum changes).
vs
An axiom that has no clear basis and no possible method of falsification plus the previous axiom.
Can you really see no way in which you could attack one position but not the other without resorting to an oversimplification?
I don't want to get into a semantics argument, though. I've had enough of those.
I'll restate my argument again, in different words. If someone can point out where we're talking past each other, that'd be great, since I'm tired of this circular argument.
These are my premises I hold to be true. Attack one of these:
- Religious axioms are unfalsifiable (such as "god exists")
- Empiricism as an axiom is unfalsifiable
- Being unfalsifiable brings cause for doubt
This is my conclusion. Point out any logical fallacies if you disagree with it, assuming you have no problems with the premises:
- Any argument built upon the assertion that "unfalsifiable is bad" must necessarily affect empiricism as well as any religious axiom, up to and including full rejection of the unfalsifiable.
And as some side notes:
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is neutral" does not provide supporting evidence for anything.
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is good" must apply to all things unfalsifiable, which is demonstrably false as most are mutually exclusive.
Post by: Grek on August 26, 2012, 06:46:03 pm
Empericists say: God is a bad theory because it assumes too many things without backing them up.
But kaijyuu says: Science also assumes things! Assuming things is bad and makes you wrong! Empericists are wrong!
But then Grek says: Assumuptions are sometimes needed. But they should not be made if you can avoid it. Science only assumes what can't be avoided! Religion assumes other, extra things which can be avoided! Don't assume those things. Choose science.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 26, 2012, 07:09:23 pm
Preachin' to the choir here, buddy. My whole rant that you took that line out of was just some supporting arguments for empiricism being unfalsifiable; asking for evidence of solipsism is pretty much identical to asking for evidence for atheism. That was the point I was making (and to no one in particular).So it doesn't matter? Good.
Axioms are things that we claim to be self evident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) I think you're confusing those and hypothesis, because that's what you're describing in the first part.Then we won't need to go over the technical definition of axiom. Good.
I don't want to get into a semantics argument, though. I've had enough of those.
I accept this one.
- Religious axioms are unfalsifiable (such as "god exists")
This isn't true in all cases - some religious people take perfectly falsifiable axioms and then ignore the evidence to the contrary (see: creationists). But this is true for the cases we're talking about (gods who do not do anything that can be observed or tested) so this one's fine.
- Empiricism as an axiom is unfalsifiableI reject this statement. Or at least I think it's poorly defined enough to be problematic.
Empiricism isn't really an axiom or an assumption. It's a method of working out the nature of the universe that depends on certain assumptions: specifically, that there's an objective and consistent reality. This is the actual axiom/ assumption/ whatever that you're claiming is unfalsifiable here, as far as I can tell, unless you want to clarify what you mean by empiricism.
I do not see how this assumption is unfalsifiable - it makes a clear prediction as to the nature of the universe. If reality is not objective or consistent we could easily notice when it behaves in radically inconsistent ways (note: quantum mechanics doesn't really count here - the outcome of individual events may be random, but if you take many events they conform to a consistent probability function).
Compare this to statements along the lines of "god exists but he does not interact with the universe in any way" - these can't be falsified as they make no testable predictions.
- Being unfalsifiable brings cause for doubtKindof - I'd go further than "brings cause for doubt". If a theory is unfalsifiable even in theory (ie, something that is currently unfalsifiable due to us not having sufficient technology to test it isn't included in this statement) then it's actually not making any claim about the universe as it exists at all. Thus the "theory" can be rejected as an irrelevant non-theory.
This is my conclusion. Point out any logical fallacies if you disagree with it, assuming you have no problems with the premises:The sticking point that I think kills this conclusion is that empiricism isn't an assumption/ axiom in itself - it's a method built on a necessary assumption, yes, but that assumption is falsifiable. I have explained earlier why I think other assumptions that people cite as pre-requisites for empiricism (like "how do you know reality is real") are not in fact necessary.
- Any argument built upon the assertion that "unfalsifiable is bad" must necessarily affect empiricism as well as any religious axiom, up to and including full rejection of the unfalsifiable.
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is neutral" does not provide supporting evidence for anything.We should definitely try having a debate sometime with one of these assumptions as given. The results would be pretty funny.
- Any argument saying "unfalsifiable is good" must apply to all things unfalsifiable, which is demonstrably false as most are mutually exclusive.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 26, 2012, 10:54:35 pm
QuoteAnd the God Emperor of Mankind.Not tolerant, not loving, and not reasonable. Emps advocated the oppression of psykers and abhumans, hated the xeno, and didn't listen to any point of view but his own. That last part is even what lead to his downfall, since he wouldn't listen to his psyker clone-son-thing Magnus the Red.
This is opposed to the Interex, who were tolerant and reasonable. They let their people know about the dangers of KAYOS, unlike the Imperium, and this kept them much safer from it since no one with actual knowledge of what Chaos entails would want to join up. They allied with any peaceful alien races they could find, which made them stronger. And it would have worked out if not for the Imperium conquering them.
Seriously, the Emperor absolutely sucked at his job. The only reason it went so well in the first place was that he was so unbelievably powerful, thanks to his psyker powers no less, the hypocrite.
Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.
Sigh. This one struck a bit of a chord with me. Here. (http://macromeme.com/dog/faith-based-decisions.html)
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2012, 12:40:34 am
Never disrespect the enemy, for that is the first and most fundamental step on the path of being surprised by them, to one's own detriment. Proper strategy requires you to know both yourself (your position) and your enemy (other positions)... and the latter as you know yourself. Through this, you need not fear the results of a thousand battles.
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 27, 2012, 12:44:07 am
Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.
this is what gives me hope that this can be the most productive atheism thread yet
Post by: Hanslanda on August 27, 2012, 12:50:02 am
Someone just used the Emperor of Mankind seriously in an argument about religion. My life is complete.
this is what gives me hope that this can be the most productive atheism thread yet
Once upon a time, Bay12 was like, 'Religion? Atheism? Let's fix this shit.' Suddenly, they were struck by a strange mood, and they started discussing and discussing, demanding definitions and descriptions, examples and counter-examples, theories and facts.
Soon, they emerged from their strange mood with an artifact in hand. They showed this artifact to all the people of the world.
And the atheists and religious people looked at each other, for once understanding the opposite position.
And everyone hugged.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 12:52:43 am
Post by: Hanslanda on August 27, 2012, 12:55:36 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 27, 2012, 01:12:36 am
Well, not sure, I feel like this thread went the way of many political thread: most (all?) religious people left, leaving only people that agree with each other.
Yeah... hopefully you guys are still watching.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2012, 01:26:38 am
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2012, 01:35:58 am
I get the same kick watching people world build for RPG systems or games or whatever, too. Same sort of pretty.
Post by: Graknorke on August 27, 2012, 06:22:39 am
Nothing like showing off nothing but worst case scenarios and wrapping it in a viciously sexist packageHow exactly was that a "viciously sexist package"? Just because it was a woman who was wrong and a man who was right? I would think that closely going over what sex someone is so much is more sexist than just ignoring it where it isn't relevant.
Post by: Siquo on August 27, 2012, 08:32:58 am
Tadaa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism- Empiricism as an axiom is unfalsifiableI reject this statement. Or at least I think it's poorly defined enough to be problematic.
I do not see how this assumption is unfalsifiable - it makes a clear prediction as to the nature of the universe. If reality is not objective or consistent we could easily notice when it behaves in radically inconsistent ways (note: quantum mechanics doesn't really count here - the outcome of individual events may be random, but if you take many events they conform to a consistent probability function).
You may reject and fail to see, but Kaijyuu is right: "unfalsifiable" is never a real argument here.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 27, 2012, 08:59:04 am
Checkmate.
...Would you mind explaining the relevance of your link to what I said? I'm pretty sure it falls under my rejection of solipsism as a relevant or interesting idea.
Post by: penguinofhonor on August 27, 2012, 10:05:59 am
Nothing like showing off nothing but worst case scenarios and wrapping it in a viciously sexist package
How exactly was that a "viciously sexist package"? Just because it was a woman who was wrong and a man who was right? I would think that closely going over what sex someone is so much is more sexist than just ignoring it where it isn't relevant.
The "ditzy religious woman, enlightened atheist man" situation is a pretty stereotypical one in online atheist culture. The attitudes surrounding it tend to be pretty bad. See: Reddit.
Post by: Criptfeind on August 27, 2012, 10:15:01 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2012, 11:00:56 am
The attitudes surrounding it tend to be pretty bad. See: Reddit.You can apply this sentence to anything. Reddit is a horrible place filled with horrible people. I browse it every day just to watch the ongoing trainwreck that is the Reddit community.
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2012, 11:07:06 am
Other bit of it being that all the figures in power were male and the female was very unflatteringly presented. That, and gender was involved at all, really. Was there really any need for that?Nothing like showing off nothing but worst case scenarios and wrapping it in a viciously sexist package
How exactly was that a "viciously sexist package"? Just because it was a woman who was wrong and a man who was right? I would think that closely going over what sex someone is so much is more sexist than just ignoring it where it isn't relevant.
The "ditzy religious woman, enlightened atheist man" situation is a pretty stereotypical one in online atheist culture. The attitudes surrounding it tend to be pretty bad. See: Reddit.
Mostly just an offensive image. I'd prefer it if the folks ostensibly on my side of the argument would show a little more dignity than resorting to stuff like that, so it pisses me off (in a sense... more minor annoyance or distaste than actually becoming incensed, but still.) a bit on multiple points. The fairly blatant sexist undertone just made it worse :-\
Post by: Leafsnail on August 27, 2012, 11:18:20 am
It's weird you'd even say that this not sexist but stupid comic has sexist undertones when there are so many actually sexist Reddit comics out there.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on August 27, 2012, 11:19:35 am
Other bit of it being that all the figures in power were male and the female was very unflatteringly presented. That, and gender was involved at all, really. Was there really any need for that?
Mostly just an offensive image. I'd prefer it if the folks ostensibly on my side of the argument would show a little more dignity than resorting to stuff like that, so it pisses me off (in a sense... more minor annoyance or distaste than actually becoming incensed, but still.) a bit on multiple points. The fairly blatant sexist undertone just made it worse :-\
I'm pretty sure you seeing it as hugely sexist is a sign of something there in your own psyche.
Post by: Shinotsa on August 27, 2012, 11:26:15 am
Post by: Graknorke on August 27, 2012, 12:51:51 pm
Reddit pales in comparison.
Post by: Siquo on August 27, 2012, 12:55:49 pm
...Would you mind explaining the relevance of your link to what I said? I'm pretty sure it falls under my rejection of solipsism as a relevant or interesting idea.Nah, I should've known not to reply to you again, your rejection to hear anything that doesn't fit your worldview makes any form of debate with you pretty much useless.
Post by: Leafsnail on August 27, 2012, 12:58:05 pm
Post by: Siquo on August 27, 2012, 02:46:35 pm
Yes, I am the bad guy here for asking you to explain your point. I am very sorry Siquo.Good, that made me feel better :D
Post by: BFEL on August 30, 2012, 11:11:13 am
2. Saw the first page of thread
3. Got bored
4. Jumped to last page of thread
5. Saw all rules broken and battered
6. Smiled :D
Post by: Micro102 on November 16, 2012, 09:16:05 pm
It does all this harm and yet doesn't do anything good that cannot be done by secular means.
Post by: Max White on November 16, 2012, 09:21:30 pm
So yea, that bit where people say 'You have the right to believe what ever you want!', I would like to know why? It is a concept I never fully understood. I can understand people wanting the right to free speech, because I can see how that is benificial to society, but does telling people that they can think what ever they like without evidence and not have it questioned and critisised really that great?
Post by: MrWiggles on November 16, 2012, 09:29:27 pm
Oh hey, so... This thread is a thing. Neat.
So yea, that bit where people say 'You have the right to believe what ever you want!', I would like to know why? It is a concept I never fully understood. I can understand people wanting the right to free speech, because I can see how that is benificial to society, but does telling people that they can think what ever they like without evidence and not have it questioned and critisised really that great?
Right to Freedom of Expression/Speech is also the right to Freedom of Thought.
The issue, is using your religion, or more importantly, using any magical thinking to act upon unconsenting adults or minors or using it as a plan of action that suppose to be representive of a diverse group.
Post by: Max White on November 16, 2012, 09:31:26 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 16, 2012, 09:32:31 pm
Post by: Max White on November 16, 2012, 09:33:28 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 16, 2012, 09:35:04 pm
Oh hey, so... This thread is a thing. Neat.
The necromancy is about half a month late, but yeah, I guess it never got locked. Just got inactive when things got a little out of hand. I'll try harder to keep people reeled in this time.
The current topic is dangerously philosophical, but it's not something I hear discussed often so I think we're treading non-circular ground for once.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 09:39:09 pm
It's fine to think whatever you want. It's when you start pushing your beliefs on others that the problems start. Also, who said your beleif isn't going to be criticized? If you have the freedom to voice your beleif, other people have the right to voice your beleif that their beleif is wrong.See, there's a problem with this thought: Numerous times in judeo-christian-Mosaic-based scripture, (all the Bibles, the Torah, and the Qu'ran), it states clearly that people are to go and spread their beliefs. If you don't, you're disobeying your religion, and risking eternal punishment.
Post by: MrWiggles on November 16, 2012, 09:42:12 pm
It's fine to think whatever you want. It's when you start pushing your beliefs on others that the problems start. Also, who said your beleif isn't going to be criticized? If you have the freedom to voice your beleif, other people have the right to voice your beleif that their beleif is wrong.See, there's a problem with this thought: Numerous times in judeo-christian-Mosaic-based scripture, (all the Bibles, the Torah, and the Qu'ran), it states clearly that people are to go and spread their beliefs. If you don't, you're disobeying your religion, and risking eternal punishment.
Thats a property common to almost every meme.
Post by: Micro102 on November 16, 2012, 09:45:19 pm
There are a lot of thing the holy books say that heir respective religious followers do not do. But you wont see these people suddenly renounce their religion because they don't want to do it ( at least not most of them). Many if not most Christians have not read the Bible. They will just find a work around, like they do with how the Bible says to stone disobediant children.It's fine to think whatever you want. It's when you start pushing your beliefs on others that the problems start. Also, who said your beleif isn't going to be criticized? If you have the freedom to voice your beleif, other people have the right to voice your beleif that their beleif is wrong.See, there's a problem with this thought: Numerous times in judeo-christian-Mosaic-based scripture, (all the Bibles, the Torah, and the Qu'ran), it states clearly that people are to go and spread their beliefs. If you don't, you're disobeying your religion, and risking eternal punishment.
Post by: Frumple on November 16, 2012, 09:47:42 pm
The current topic is dangerously philosophical, but it's not something I hear discussed often so I think we're treading non-circular ground for once.Ethics of belief is only tangentially related to religion, yeah. As for Max W's thing, I think the major reason we've currently mostly subscribed to a kind of "anything-goes" in the realm of belief is because that's been the system that's so-far been least capable (though, of course, note that least is not un-) of being abused, or at very least is the least troublesome to roll with. If you hold that there's reasons to disallow certain sorts of belief systems, things get hellaciously complicated.
There's a number of folks that have chimed in on the ethics of forming and holding belief, though, most of them outside of theology so far as I know.
The method of spreading your belief can vary, though. It's not all shoving bibles down your throat and hellfire and brimstone and swords. I've ran into a few Christian believers who hold that proselytizing is done strictly through action (or to be more precise, it's a necessary consequence of proper worship; "walk with god and others will come and walk with you", kind of thing), and who only spread the word, so to speak, when it's directly requested and even then not as a "this is the truth" but a "this is the truth that has worked for me" thing. I'm fairly sure there's a bit stronger thread of that in some of the more predominately eastern religions, as well.It's fine to think whatever you want. It's when you start pushing your beliefs on others that the problems start. Also, who said your beleif isn't going to be criticized? If you have the freedom to voice your beleif, other people have the right to voice your beleif that their beleif is wrong.See, there's a problem with this thought: Numerous times in judeo-christian-Mosaic-based scripture, (all the Bibles, the Torah, and the Qu'ran), it states clearly that people are to go and spread their beliefs. If you don't, you're disobeying your religion, and risking eternal punishment.
Post by: Max White on November 16, 2012, 09:47:53 pm
Is evolution real? Is it a lie? Well we can figure that out by observing speciation, and we have! You can question the methods used in the experiment and the application of collected data and the precision of instruments and what have you, but at the end of the day when those issues are addressed, and they have been, it has still been clearly observed. Now, should you have the right to think over wise?
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 09:52:42 pm
Thats a property common to almost every meme.This is true, but most people don't realize that what they're doing is memetic, no matter the meme.
There are a lot of thing the holy books say that heir respective religious followers do not do. But you wont see these people suddenly renounce their religion because they don't want to do it ( at least not most of them). Many if not most Christians have not read the Bible. They will just find a work around, like they do with how the Bible says to stone disobediant children.It would be really difficult to stone a child for talking back to you in our current social climate. However, it's really easy to knock on doors at 7am and fuck up peoples' day if you do it with a smile. Also, I wish more christians would read their bibles, and take the time to understand them. There would be more atheists.
The method of spreading your belief can vary, though. It's not all shoving bibles down your throat and hellfire and brimstone and swords. I've ran into a few Christian believers who hold that proselytizing is done strictly through action (or to be more precise, it's a necessary consequence of proper worship; "walk with god and others will come and walk with you", kind of thing), and who only spread the word, so to speak, when it's directly requested and even then not as a "this is the truth" but a "this is the truth that has worked for me" thing. I'm fairly sure there's a bit stronger thread of that in some of the more predominately eastern religions, as well.No, not all proselytizing is done with a megaphone and a cattle prod. However, the ones who are the loudest get the most attention, and hey, any publicity is good publicity, right?
Post by: Frumple on November 16, 2012, 09:55:52 pm
Is evolution real? Is it a lie? Well we can figure that out by observing speciation, and we have! You can question the methods used in the experiment and the application of collected data and the precision of instruments and what have you, but at the end of the day when those issues are addressed, and they have been, it has still been clearly observed. Now, should you have the right to think over wise?Gods, of course we have the right to think otherwise. It'd be the absolute height of hubris to assume that our "addressed issues" aren't going to be just as flawed as pretty much every single bloody other one we as a species have had in the past. Doing otherwise is setting ourselves up for another Galileo or two dozen down the line. Clearly observed entails "to the extent of our capabilities" which necessarily means finite and flawed, at least at this point. We've got really good ideas of a lot that's going on but we're not even remotely to the point we're done writing the book yet.
Post by: Micro102 on November 16, 2012, 10:01:12 pm
Anyway there are tons of clips and full shows on YouTube, and I have seen every argument discussed in this show. I believe it is still up and that you can call in when they run the show, which I also believe they have a livestream for.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on November 16, 2012, 10:07:00 pm
Post by: Levi on November 16, 2012, 10:10:10 pm
Eh, the most interesting part of The Atheist Experience is responding to the trolls and pseudo-trolls. Otherwise not very interesting.
You can always troll the agnostics instead.
"Yo agnostics! I guess you totally don't care whether or not invisible pink unicorns exist! Eh? Eh? Maybe they do, maybe they don't right?"
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 10:11:13 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 10:12:12 pm
Invisible pink unicorns don't exist, due to the logical contradiction. An invisible intangible unicorn may exist right next to me, though. Don't care about him either way.But it is only through this logical contradiction that you may know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the almighty creator of the universe. What else could be pink and invisible at the same time!? Huh?
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 10:14:01 pm
Sick 'em, invisible intangible unicorn! Impale him on your mighty horn!
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 10:14:36 pm
Trying the old circular argument by assuming the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, eh?Silly Kai, intangible things can't hurt me. They're intangible!
Sick 'em, invisible intangible unicorn! Impale him on your mighty horn!
Post by: Frumple on November 16, 2012, 10:15:36 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 10:15:52 pm
Blast! Foiled again!Trying the old circular argument by assuming the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, eh?Silly Kai, intangible things can't hurt me. They're intangible!
Sick 'em, invisible intangible unicorn! Impale him on your mighty horn!
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 10:16:45 pm
But what if they can influence something that can hurt you, though?Then I will facepunch that thing. If it doesn't have a face...I have a sharpie. I'll draw one on and punch that.
Post by: Gunner-Chan on November 16, 2012, 10:17:30 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on November 16, 2012, 10:19:27 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on November 16, 2012, 10:20:41 pm
Hey guys. You're doing that obnoxious thing where you pretend the fourm is the IRC channel. Again.Sorry. Didn't mean to be obnoxious. :-\
Post by: Gunner-Chan on November 16, 2012, 10:26:56 pm
I personally don't even know why I was talked to like I could honestly do something about it when reports should of been given. But really that's not something I like coming online to in the rare times I even bother anymore.
Anyway someone please pick discussion back up because this is still veering pretty off topic in an actual discussion topic.
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 16, 2012, 10:28:54 pm
Sorry. We'll resume anti fun mode, debating theology pointlessly due to axiomatic differences in opinion making resolution impossible.obviously we just need to disprove the other side's axioms.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 16, 2012, 10:32:43 pm
Hey guys. You're doing that obnoxious thing where you pretend the fourm is the IRC channel. Again.Yeah that's what the happy thread's for, geez.
Post by: Micro102 on November 16, 2012, 10:53:18 pm
Post by: Sonlirain on November 16, 2012, 11:03:16 pm
Post by: justinlee999 on November 16, 2012, 11:13:08 pm
Also you just compared Jews to Nazis, I hope you're joking.
Post by: Flying Dice on November 16, 2012, 11:57:43 pm
I sort of find it hard to believe that you've never met an atheist who wasn't a raging asshole. I certainly won't claim to have never met a Christian who wasn't a hypocritical, ignorant, pushy jackass. More likely you're only remembering/recognizing as atheists the idiots who can't shut up about it. Though as above, atheism is not a religion, to say the least (even if certain types like to treat it as such).
I would probably call myself an agnostic atheist, but given the environment in which I live, I can't afford to give ground of any sort. If saying "I don't believe in deities." allows me to continue on my way without further harassment but "I am inclined to disbelieve in the existence of deities but cannot claim that they don't exist with certainty." drags me into a extended discussion/conversion attempt, the choice is obvious.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 17, 2012, 12:58:33 am
On the off chance you're serious...Sorry. We'll resume anti fun mode, debating theology pointlessly due to axiomatic differences in opinion making resolution impossible.obviously we just need to disprove the other side's axioms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Quote
As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
It is impossible to disprove an axiom, as it is so basic to reasoning that it has no supporting arguments. You CAN however point out logically contradictory axioms held by the same person, which will force the person you're debating with to choose one or the other. This is the method which most mainstream religions are most easily attacked; someone who accepts empiricism (and thus, science) and Christianity has a lot of mutually exclusive beliefs.
Post by: Hiiri on November 17, 2012, 01:29:13 am
You can always troll the agnostics instead.
"Yo agnostics! I guess you totally don't care whether or not invisible pink unicorns exist! Eh? Eh? Maybe they do, maybe they don't right?"
Yo agnostics! Check the box if you agree!
[ ] God exists.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 17, 2012, 01:38:26 am
All in all... i guess i'm just a big fat lazy bigot because i just can't find any religion i'd actually like and respect.The question here is simple: What do you believe, if anything?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 03:57:14 am
Did you just call atheism a religion?I'm sure he did. Also, Atheism often is just this for some people, but hell if they're going to accept it.
As some important person once said(I should really remember those whom I'm quoting):
A human has either a diety or idol(Note that I probably mistranslated the quote in addition to only remembering it).
This doesn't condemn any Atheists, or praise religious people. After all, the god referred to is just a methaphor. I could give a long explanation on this whole thing, but I'm not going to do so.
Short version: If you believe in God, you base your identity on what he thinks of you. Since God is not a very talkative person, you base you identity on yourself.
Idolism means that your base your identity on what other people make of you, of what they think you're.
That's an ideal, of course.
Post by: Max White on November 17, 2012, 04:54:10 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:02:36 am
Well I certainly have no problem with Idols, but the difference between an idol and a god is that you pray to a god to solve all your problems, you just aspire to be a little more like your idol. A homeless man who makes a god of a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago closes his hands in prayer and hopes for a house. A homeless man who makes an idol of a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago opens his hands and grabs a plank of wood to get started.(I knew I mistranslated something. Also, pretty sure you didn't read the explanation beneath it).
Not idols as in people that other people look up to, but as in false god, something like that.
Post by: Max White on November 17, 2012, 05:06:06 am
Post by: Siquo on November 17, 2012, 05:07:03 am
You CAN however point out logically contradictory axioms held by the same person, which will force the person you're debating with to choose one or the other.All the other stuff you said is 100% true, but logic itself is just another axiom, so this doesn't work. If there's a real, all powerful god, he'll take your logic, chew it up, and spit it out.
Well I certainly have no problem with Idols, but the difference between an idol and a god is that you pray to a god to solve all your problemsNot always. I agree that externalisation of the locus of control is detrimental to ones personal development, but there are many types of god that allow for personal responsibility and self-development.
A human has either a diety or idol.I like this one. An idol can be anything: yourself, science, that the world around us exists, or even the idea that you can't tell (agnosticism is idol-worshipping, HA!).
Post by: Max White on November 17, 2012, 05:10:49 am
Post by: Brotato on November 17, 2012, 05:12:48 am
If an idol is defined as a false god, and a false god is a god that isn't real, then lots and lots of people are worshiping idols my friend.
By Idol, it might be more appropriate to say use something like power, money, greed, love, hatred, admiration, or really anything that embodies what you want, you what you think you want.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 06:37:45 am
If an idol is defined as a false god, and a false god is a god that isn't real, then lots and lots of people are worshiping idols my friend.Of course, I know. But where do you get the second thing from? As clearly explained below the quote, it's a complete methaphor. You can have who worship a "God", even if they do not know it. You have Christians who worship an idolized version of their God(for example the Holier than thou guys).
I'm sure you're taking the methaphor way to literal. It's just a synopsis of one of the points of the Bible (and other Holy books preach).
Following the scriptures of the Bible is going to get you into more problems than it's going to get you out of. (Even if we don't intrepret it litteral). Over all, and especially the later part it preaches that you should not judge others, but be there for them ,and help them. When someone hits you in the face, show them your other cheek and stuff like that. It's breaking down the Eye for an Eye principle. As such, you put yourself in a weak position, and risk to become part of the oppressed.Well I certainly have no problem with Idols, but the difference between an idol and a god is that you pray to a god to solve all your problemsNot always. I agree that externalisation of the locus of control is detrimental to ones personal development, but there are many types of god that allow for personal responsibility and self-development.
Even more, God can be replaced with any of these too. It's more the way that you believe in them that matters.A human has either a diety or idol.I like this one. An idol can be anything: yourself, science, that the world around us exists, or even the idea that you can't tell (agnosticism is idol-worshipping, HA!).
I think you got it.If an idol is defined as a false god, and a false god is a god that isn't real, then lots and lots of people are worshiping idols my friend.
By Idol, it might be more appropriate to say use something like power, money, greed, love, hatred, admiration, or really anything that embodies what you want, you what you think you want.
Post by: Siquo on November 17, 2012, 06:44:51 am
So? Why is that a bad thing?Following the scriptures of the Bible is going to get you into more problems than it's going to get you out of. (Even if we don't intrepret it litteral). Over all, and especially the later part it preaches that you should not judge others, but be there for them ,and help them. When someone hits you in the face, show them your other cheek and stuff like that. It's breaking down the Eye for an Eye principle. As such, you put yourself in a weak position, and risk to become part of the oppressed.Well I certainly have no problem with Idols, but the difference between an idol and a god is that you pray to a god to solve all your problemsNot always. I agree that externalisation of the locus of control is detrimental to ones personal development, but there are many types of god that allow for personal responsibility and self-development.
Post by: Max White on November 17, 2012, 06:50:33 am
Not punching somebody back isn't going to 'make you oppressed', it is going to give you a better chance of avoiding a fight and/or criminal offence. Anybody that is truly oppressed isn't in any sort of position to punch back, what with the machine guns being pointed at them and only food nearby under armed guard.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 07:01:56 am
So? Why is that a bad thing?Did I say it was a bad thing.
Yea, eye for an eye isn't the best of ideals.((You really like to take things litteral do you. Another example might be 2 people/ whatever fighting for something both of them want. When A takes something from B, B can decide to let it pass. This prevents a bitter rivalry, but there's a chance that people will try to take from B often in the future. A better example is below)). Let's take a biblical example.
Not punching somebody back isn't going to 'make you oppressed', it is going to give you a better chance of avoiding a fight and/or criminal offence. Anybody that is truly oppressed isn't in any sort of position to punch back, what with the machine guns being pointed at them and only food nearby under armed guard.
Quote
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.If any of them had dared to throw a stone, would Jezus have gotten out alive? I think not. It's these thing (or at least similair) that the Bible asks you to do. It asks you to put yourself at risk for others, with no promised reward or anything.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Spoiler: Better example is below (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max White on November 17, 2012, 07:04:00 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 07:13:47 am
Focusing on the needs of many over the needs of ones self with no incentive in generally thought to be a good moral lesson.You mean to say what exactly?
PS: I edited my post below pretty heavily.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 17, 2012, 09:54:23 am
All the other stuff you said is 100% true, but logic itself is just another axiom, so this doesn't work. If there's a real, all powerful god, he'll take your logic, chew it up, and spit it out.Ahhh yes this argument. "Logic isn't necessarily true so your arguments are invalid! Mine are fine though"
Hint: you're invalidating all your own arguments too.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 17, 2012, 10:06:41 am
Sure logic being valid is an axiom, but if you deny it then discourse is literally impossible. As Leaf said, it invalidates all arguments and methods of reasoning, including those for religion. It's one of those things you have to assume else you might as well be comatose.
Post by: Frumple on November 17, 2012, 10:07:54 am
Point being that whichever logic system you're decrying probably shares some axioms with whatever you're decrying because of, as Leafsnail sorta' points out, and so your system has the same problem if logic does. Logic axioms tend to be incredibly basic stuff, even in relation to other axioms, so many other concept systems at least have a couple of 'em in there.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 17, 2012, 10:37:00 am
Point being that whichever logic system you're decrying probably shares some axioms with whatever you're decrying because of, as Leafsnail sorta' points out, and so your system has the same problem if logic does. Logic axioms tend to be incredibly basic stuff, even in relation to other axioms, so many other concept systems at least have a couple of 'em in there.As far as I can tell by saying that contradictions can be valid, Siquo is going against the axiom that "If A is true, then Not-A is not true". This is an extremely fundamental axiom, and without it it is almost impossible to make any meaningful statement.
Certainly you can't claim to say someone else is wrong, because even if you decisively show that their belief B is incorrect, they can say "Well, according to your logic B can be not true but also true at the same time, so it's still true".
I mean, I guess there are some philosophers who went against it, but they pretty much have to build up their logic in a completely different way and can't argue normally at all.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 17, 2012, 02:35:18 pm
As for last page's deal, yeah, I'd like it if any significant amount of goofing off remained in the IRC/happy thread. I don't want to ban all joking, but if you're making a post solely to respond to a joke then it's probably better made elsewhere. And the OOC thread is always there to call out unintentional hilarity.
Also I spontaneously decided it was time for a change in title scenery. "Theology" sounded too stuffy.
Post by: Micro102 on November 17, 2012, 02:48:33 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 03:43:32 pm
OK, re-railing this thread. I've seen many religious claims revolve around solid logic. But just because something is logical, does not mean its contents are true. It usually ends up as "well this is false so God did it"Giving examples would be nice.
Post by: Fenrir on November 17, 2012, 04:14:01 pm
As some important person once said(I should really remember those whom I'm quoting):
A human has either a diety or idol(Note that I probably mistranslated the quote in addition to only remembering it).
This doesn't condemn any Atheists, or praise religious people. After all, the god referred to is just a methaphor. I could give a long explanation on this whole thing, but I'm not going to do so.
Short version: If you believe in God, you base your identity on what he thinks of you. Since God is not a very talkative person, you base you identity on yourself.
Idolism means that your base your identity on what other people make of you, of what they think you're.
That's an ideal, of course.
I’ll have you know that Connotation Smuggling is illegal.
It works like this. First, you re-define words like “deity” and “idol” to mean something different, usually abusing the leeway the English tongue gives you. Here you have re-defined them to mean (by a muddled syllogism) “identifying with yourself” and “identifying with other people”. Then you assert that, since, of course, anyone is doing one or the other of these things, then everyone either has a deity or an idol, so isn’t that interesting and no officer these words are just metaphors there’s nothing in them stop taking me literally.
If you stripped out the bit where you tamper with the language (or if we “take it as a metaphor” as you insist), we see that your statement is “People either identify with themselves or other people,” which isn’t making any point at all, and has nothing to do with the topic. The cargo manifest does not match what I see you unloading in the dock.
We have as further evidence a conversation between you and a satisfied buyer:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 04:30:48 pm
As some important person once said(I should really remember those whom I'm quoting):
A human has either a diety or idol(Note that I probably mistranslated the quote in addition to only remembering it).
This doesn't condemn any Atheists, or praise religious people. After all, the god referred to is just a methaphor. I could give a long explanation on this whole thing, but I'm not going to do so.
Short version: If you believe in God, you base your identity on what he thinks of you. Since God is not a very talkative person, you base you identity on yourself.
Idolism means that your base your identity on what other people make of you, of what they think you're.
That's an ideal, of course.
I’ll have you know that Connotation Smuggling is illegal.
It works like this. First, you re-define words like “deity” and “idol” to mean something different, usually abusing the leeway the English tongue gives you. Here you have re-defined them to mean (by a muddled syllogism) “identifying with yourself” and “identifying with other people”. Then you assert that, since, of course, anyone is doing one or the other of these things, then everyone either has a deity or an idol, so isn’t that interesting and no officer these words are just metaphors there’s nothing in them stop taking me literally.
If you stripped out the bit where you tamper with the language (or if we “take it as a metaphor” as you insist), we see that your statement is “People either identify with themselves or other people,” which isn’t making any point at all, and has nothing to do with the topic. The cargo manifest does not match what I see you unloading in the dock.
We have as further evidence a conversation between you and a satisfied buyer:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
((Wasn't intentionall))
It has quite a bit to do with the topic since it is one of the morals you can get from the Bible. In fact, said thing and theory is in fact a quote from someone else(rather famous philospher I believe). It's just that I failed to provide the context, and origin of the sitation(looking for that still, but it's rather hard if you fail to remember
a) the exact quote
b) whomever said it).
Post by: Fenrir on November 17, 2012, 04:48:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Connotation Smuggling is illegal in any context, and it doesn’t matter if someone famous did it first and gave you the idea.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 04:59:05 pm
So how do you account for the fact that you made that post before the Bible was the topic of discussion, and you did so while “Atheism is a religion,” accusation, a common connotation-smuggling operation, was the topic?I'm pretty sure I don't quite understand. (Which probably has something to do with me being not really awake at the moment).Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Connotation Smuggling is illegal in any context, and it doesn’t matter if someone famous did it first and gave you the idea.
Besides, Atheism can be a religion, or better worded, Atheists can be religious is not an accusation(which implies religion to be bad, which it doesn't need to be) it's a fact. (For a given definition of religious of course).
Which always appear to be a problem, as people can't real keep to one definion or another.
Post by: Fenrir on November 17, 2012, 05:14:19 pm
1. “It has quite a bit to do with the topic since it is one of the morals you can get from the Bible.”
Your post never mentions the Bible, and no one else had either. It’s really weird to randomly assert that the Bible teaches “People identify with either themselves or other people,” without even mentioning the Bible and without it being relevant to anything anyone else was saying either.
Even if you were being honest right now and that was what you were trying to say, that does not explain why you didn’t just say it instead of re-defining words first.
2. “Said thing and theory is in fact a quote from someone else(rather famous philospher I believe).”
Who thought of it first is irrelevant.
3. “It's just that I failed to provide the context.”
Again, context does not make connotation smuggling not connotation smuggling.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 05:27:11 pm
Nevermind, I think I saw where I made a kind of non sequitur.
Post by: Fenrir on November 17, 2012, 05:47:54 pm
No one else seemed to notice it was a ruse. If anyone actually used your new definitions, what they would get would have nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about.
Of course, this might just be a run-around you’re giving me, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt for now.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 17, 2012, 06:00:25 pm
Problem was caused by me using a wrong connotation of religious (as in, fervent believers in something, a connotation you often see recurring in this sort of debates). ( this part was scrapped before the final post) Followed by me switching to another definition of religiousity, where you can indeed draw parralels.
I suppose that by using the wikipedia definition of religion you can say that atheism + other -isms aren't religions, since that's pretty much the definition.
I do dare to say that there are a lot of similarities between some atheists and religious people, and that sometimes the link between atheists and religous people can be greater than between the different types of atheists and religious.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 17, 2012, 06:10:24 pm
I do dare to say that there are a lot of similarities between some atheists and religious people, and that sometimes the link between atheists and religous people can be greater than between the different types of atheists and religious.This isn't really saying much at all. Like I get that you're saying some atheists are dogmatic but what is that meant to mean? Are these atheists who act like religious people meant to be bad?
Post by: Micro102 on November 17, 2012, 11:18:06 pm
Anyway, atheism should not be considered a religion. On one hand it is a name based on what you don't believe in, which is a very uncommon way of identifying things, by what they aren't. Secondly, religion is based on faith, atheism isn't.
But if it does end up getting classified as a religion by the government then I don't really mind. Just means tax free "churches" ;)
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 02:04:12 am
On one hand it is a name based on what you don't believe in, which is a very uncommon way of identifying things, by what they aren't.I have to disagree with you there. You are mixing agnosticism with atheism there. Atheism means that you believe in the non-existence of any gods/divine beings. It does not refer to the other options but rather states clearly what you believe in: a completely mundane world.
Quote
Secondly, religion is based on faith, atheism isn't.
Once you have found a way to disprove the existence of divinity without using axioms inherent of atheism, your statement would be correct. But as it stands, atheism requires just as much faith as religion. Atheists believe there is no divinity, just as much as Christians believe in the existence of the Christian god, and neither side has any better proof for their belief than the other side.
Whether to classify atheism as a religion or not is a very difficult question. In many regards, atheism works as a religion, in other regards it can not do so. For instance, atheism answers the same questions about the creation of the world, the creation of humanity. It also answers the question of meaning.
In addition, it definitely takes up the same slot as theist religions. That is, if you are an atheist, you can't be a Christian.
On the other hand, atheism lacks rituals and community, and more importantly, it inherently denies objective ethics, thus providing no ethics in and of itself.
Personally, I prefer to refer to atheism as a religion, simply as this stresses that atheists are just as dependent on faith as theist people. The atheist position is in no way objectively superior or inferior to the theist position in that regard, and this is something important too many people tend to forget.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 02:19:44 am
Agnostic is an adjective. It means to be uncertain of. For example, if Bob didn't know if Jamie was a boy or a girl, then Bob is agnostic to Jamies gender. It is also a rather important thing when using inheritance in programming. Agnostic is a word that exists outside of religious aliment.
Now, how does it fit into ones religous aligment? Well here.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Because you can't prove a negative, you will find most rational people are agnostic atheists. In the same way, without a way to prove that unicorns, dragons or grumpkins don't exist, most people are agnostic about those too.
Remember kids, agnostic atheist isn't a religion, because there is no faith involved. You aren't making any statement about somethings existence, you are just pointing out the total lack of evidence for something and saying that we might as well treat it like it doesn't exist until something turns up.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 18, 2012, 02:24:46 am
I still don't particularly like that chart since it assumes everyone's come to a conclusion, even if they don't put any claim of knowledge behind it.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 02:30:31 am
You have a very nice graph there, and it illuminates what I had been trying to point out quite nicely: Not all atheists are agnostics, or rather atheism does not mean you are automatically agnostic. And if you are a gnostic atheist, then you do have faith just as a gnostic theist. Thus, atheism as such can have as much faith as theism.
Yours,
Deathworks
EDIT: Kaijyuu: I am an agnostic atheist in that chart. And I do believe that everyone has at least subconsciously a position as to how the world works, whether due to one or more divine entities or due to their absence. These are very basic questions as they are at the deep core of our decision-making process.
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 02:33:28 am
Under that chart, I suppose I'd be a Agnostic Theist, though I only lean toward Theism very slightly and due to gut feeling/wishful thinking, rather than anything logical.
I still don't particularly like that chart since it assumes everyone's come to a conclusion, even if they don't put any claim of knowledge behind it.
The interesting thing is that if you are a agnostic theist, then most likely you are also an agnostic atheist. Not always but often. See if you are an agnostic theist towards say, Isis, then you most likely don't believe in Thor, but being agnostic leaves room for the possibility to exist, so you are an agnostic atheist towards Thor.
In the same way, being gnostic theist towards Thor would require you to deny many other gods, making you gnostic atheist towards Isis and Zeus.
The claim of certainty is a big thing...
Hello Max WhiteTrue, there are atheists that claim absolute certainty that there is no god or something similar. This really does come down to faith making it a lot more similar to a religion than the agnostic counterpart, but you will find that the majority of atheists are agnostic, and willing to accept any real evidence you can find for a god. Just don't expect us to swallow any of that 'Self evident' tripe, or other voodoo arguments.
You have a very nice graph there, and it illuminates what I had been trying to point out quite nicely: Not all atheists are agnostics, or rather atheism does not mean you are automatically agnostic. And if you are a gnostic atheist, then you do have faith just as a gnostic theist. Thus, atheism as such can have as much faith as theism.
Yours,
Deathworks
EDIT: Kaijyuu: I am an agnostic atheist in that chart. And I do believe that everyone has at least subconsciously a position as to how the world works, whether due to one or more divine entities or due to their absence. These are very basic questions as they are at the deep core of our decision-making process.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 02:46:17 am
I would rather like to be careful about giving likelihoods. I don't know of any reliable statistics about the number of genuine atheists in a given region and much less about whether they are agnostic or not.
I don't see why an agnostic atheist should try to convert people away from theism. After all, if you don't know about the validity of your own position, how can you claim that your position is better/superior to a different position? And yet, there are those who are publicly campaigning against theism, ranging from the personal level up to attacking theist religions as a concept as such.
Therefore, I don't think that gnostic atheists are that rare.
And frankly, when you try to link rationality with agnostic atheism, it feels as if you implied that theism was irrational, a generalized qualification that would already go towards gnostic atheism in my opinion.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 03:06:16 am
It is for that reason that agnostic atheist is a reasonable, defensible position.
As for this ' publicly campaigning against theism', in a world where religion is like a cancer in education, healthcare and human rights, I think you will find that any agnostic atheist would fight for a secular society. You can have your faith, just make sure it doesn't get in the way of anything important.
And I don't mean to imply that theism is rational and atheism isn't. I mean to imply that agnostic is rational and gnostic is not. Claiming knowledge of something you have no objective evidence for is silly. If you have some, then show me.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 18, 2012, 03:12:49 am
And I don't mean to imply that theism is rational and atheism isn't. I mean to imply that agnostic is rational and gnostic is not. Claiming knowledge of something you have no objective evidence for is silly. If you have some, then show me.Empirical evidence is based upon equally indefensible axioms, you know. A solipsist would scoff at you calling such evidence "objective."
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 03:16:52 am
Post by: Hiiri on November 18, 2012, 03:19:35 am
I don't see why an agnostic atheist should try to convert people away from theism. After all, if you don't know about the validity of your own position, how can you claim that your position is better/superior to a different position? And yet, there are those who are publicly campaigning against theism, ranging from the personal level up to attacking theist religions as a concept as such.
Even if you don't know an answer to something, it doesn't make every answer equally valid.
I've got eggs in my fridge. I don't know how many there are. Is it equally valid to say there are 5 eggs or 5 million eggs in my fridge? Of course not.
And frankly, when you try to link rationality with agnostic atheism, it feels as if you implied that theism was irrational, a generalized qualification that would already go towards gnostic atheism in my opinion.
It is irrational. There is no evidence for it.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 03:33:37 am
And that "'wat iz realz' clusterfuck" is at the very core of the theism/atheism question. Science is using models and assumptions whose veracity is only "confirmed" by comparing how well their predictions co-incide with the observed results. We don't know if any single of the laws of physics is actually correct in describing the world - they are currently our best guess, but they are not proven facts. Just remember the upheaval Einstein brought about.
And the question of divinity lies even much, much deeper that quarks and what not. It is a question about the very basic source.
I am also an agnostic atheist and for me, agnosticism is logical from the evidence I have and the assumptions I have made. However, I would not go so far as to categorically deny the impossibility for evidence of divinity. Assuming that something divine exists, it could, theoretically, prove its own existence in some way by influencing the world we perceive. Therefore, if I really assume that I do not know whether there is anything divine, I can not claim that such evidence is outright impossible.
Hiiri: Your comparison with the fridge is incorrect as you know a lot more about the fridge than what we know for sure about the world. The theism question is more like the question sailors of old were confronted with - what will there be beyond the Atlantic Ocean? No one has seen it and given reliable information. Is there just more ocean to infinity? The end of the world? More countries? Or maybe a loop back to the East? There were theories, but until someone actually went there, checked, and reported back, neither theory could claim superiority.
Yours,
Deathworks
P.S.: Hiiri: Your last sentence implies that there is evidence for atheism. I would be interested in seeing how you procure evidence for the non-existence of divinity.
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 03:39:08 am
You can't live your life like Wen the Eternally Surprised, it isn't possible, so if you are going to make these assumptions then don't pick and choose when they count just to better fit your case.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 03:49:41 am
Well, you have just described agnostic atheism very well:
Quote
the 'reality' question is unanswerable, by definition
That is exactly what an agnostic atheist believes. And if they then make assumptions as that position lacks a basis for questions that requires answers due to their human nature, they make those assumptions being aware that those are assumptions and not objective truth.
Once you claim that those assumptions have any objectivity, you are no longer holding an agnostic position, as you propose knowledge about objectivity, something that agnosticism denies.
And I don't see how I switched my argument in any way. I have always argued that I can't prove or disprove divinity objectively, and pointing out the impossibility for an agnosticist to know objectivity does not seem to contradict those statements.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 03:54:48 am
If tomorrow everybody woke up in brain pods and we learnt that all of history was just a simulation that had run for a few minutes, and anything before that was just pre-existing data, then the rational thing to do would be sit down and say 'Well, I guess everything we thought we knew was invalid! Time to make the exact same assumptions and start again!
No matter what happens, even if your reality itself is invalidated, you can always make the fundamental assumptions.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 04:05:48 am
Well, as far as I know, Buddhism, for instance, questions the reality of our world itself, making it a mere shadow of real life. If I am to assume that our world is real, I already have denied the possibility of Buddhism to be correct. But in doing so, I have already moved away from the agnostic position.
And if you advice us to make assumptions, you are allowing us to choose something. After all, there is nothing objective to work on, so we can pick freely, what exact assumptions we make. For instance, an apple falls from a tree. I can assume that this is due to the physical law of gravity. But I can just as easily assume that it does so, because God has imposed the rule that apples fall from trees. If we do not know the objective truth, either assumption is equally possible to choose. Or rather, can you point out any reason to prefer one assumption over the other?
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 04:15:19 am
I don't know that the universe I live in is real, but I choose to believe that it is real for the sake of accepting that I have applicable knowledge of its workings. This doesn't really exclude you from questioning your own belief. Making assumptions isn't the same as deciding that you know the truth, at least not for anybody with the capacity to work with hypothetical.
If the universe is real, and observable, and follows patterns, then I can predict that letting go of this ball will cause it to fall.
That is the assumption we make for all things, as such normally we just exclude the first part, because it is implied.
And yes, you can make any assumptions, but you will find some more useful than others. Assuming that 'God did it' is useless because it gives us no pattern to work with. We can't apply anything. If you are going to assume something, it should be the most fundamental things you can, otherwise you will find your model doesn't work very well.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 04:24:42 am
I don't see where I mistake knowing for believing. Believing is basically the same as assuming in my explanation. Knowing is about objective fact, believing is about subjective assumptions.
The problem is that you try to prove the usefulness for assumptions without an objective basis.
For instance, if God existed and judged us by our faith in it, assuming that God made the apple fall is actually more useful than assuming that gravity did it - you are scoring differently on the objective scale of God, and thus may benefit in ways that surpass any benefits you might have in a short-term.
The problem is that usefulness requires value. Value, however, requires an aim. For instance, is it useful to kill a dog? If I am living in a city where there are stray dogs spreading disease and my aim is to stop the disease, the answer is yes. If I am working in a nursing home where that dog is used to help patients feel better, the answer is no. If you do not know what the world is objectively about, you can evaluate the usefulness of assumptions. Maybe, in the scheme of things, my survival is a bad thing, so it would be objectively better if I died - how can I be certain about that question? And if my survival is a negative, things that benefit my survival are negatives - which negates most of the popular concepts of usefulness people often propose.
Again, without objectivity, you can measure value, and without measuring value, you can't measure usefulness.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Hiiri on November 18, 2012, 04:27:05 am
Hiiri: Your comparison with the fridge is incorrect as you know a lot more about the fridge than what we know for sure about the world.
Nothing about the universe suggests there being any gods. Everything in the world works as if there were no gods.
There could be lots we don't know about the fridge either. Who knows, maybe a vortex to an alternate egg dimension opens up every time we close the fridge door. We don't know that.
We judge the rationality of answers on what we know, not what we might not know. Our lack of knowledge is irrelevant.
The theism question is more like the question sailors of old were confronted with - what will there be beyond the Atlantic Ocean? No one has seen it and given reliable information. Is there just more ocean to infinity? The end of the world? More countries? Or maybe a loop back to the East? There were theories, but until someone actually went there, checked, and reported back, neither theory could claim superiority.
Exact reason why they sailed west was because they expected to find new trade routes to Asia. The options weren't equally valid at the time. They could observe the world around them and judge the options based on that.
P.S.: Hiiri: Your last sentence implies that there is evidence for atheism. I would be interested in seeing how you procure evidence for the non-existence of divinity.
Sure, nothing exists until shown to exist. (No, I don't mean they poof into existence as soon as encountered)
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 04:30:54 am
Again, without objectivity, you can measure value, and without measuring value, you can't measure usefulness.Every day things fall. Knowing how and why and at what rate is useful. If you want me to show you that things fall, I can do that.
Do people get judged every day? Can you show me?
My assumption that things exist to be able to fall is a lot more useful than yours.
Also, things don't have to be quantised to be comparable.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 04:47:49 am
Nothing about the universe suggests there being any gods. Everything in the world works as if there were no gods.What exactly would be a suggestion of divinity in your eyes? Given that gods are by definition a different level of existence from our own, double-guessing their motiviations and predicting their goals seems a bit difficult to me.
Quote
There could be lots we don't know about the fridge either. Who knows, maybe a vortex to an alternate egg dimension opens up every time we close the fridge door. We don't know that.Well, actually we do not know about that vortex. After all, there could be that vortex, but usually it works in such a way that we do not notice - following a law of balance, for instance, it may be that the eggs we put in there travel to that dimension and an equal number of eggs are expelled. Or it may open, and in most cases, nothing is exchanged - but the opening is still there, usable under the right circumstances.
We judge the rationality of answers on what we know, not what we might not know. Our lack of knowledge is irrelevant.
Quote
Exact reason why they sailed west was because they expected to find new trade routes to Asia. The options weren't equally valid at the time. They could observe the world around them and judge the options based on that.
Nope, there were also a lot of people who expected them to drop off the world at that time. And before the explorers set off, most people judged that the earth was flat - because you could stand steadily on it without falling away, for instance.
Quote
Sure, nothing exists until shown to exist. (No, I don't mean they poof into existence as soon as encountered)Oh, so how do you think about quantum physics, or easier, about atoms and molecules. I suppose they did not exist in the Middle Ages because they were not shown to exist yet. Or if you allow for their existence despite not having shown to exist back then, how can you disallow for the existence of divinity only by pointing out that we have not yet shown its existence?
And atoms were proposed even in Ancient Greek, so the search had been on long before the Middle Ages.
Yours,
Deathworks
P.S.: Max White: Why is it useful to know that things fall? Usefulness implies that it can be used for a benefit. How do you define benefit? What is "good" in the sense of "benefit"? Why is that "good"?
And I can point to a medical example to show the limitation of your usefulness argument: If you have an itching spot, scratching yourself is the short-term solution. You can easily see that it gives you short-term relief. But in the long run, it will only cause damage to your skin, resulting in more itching.
Itching, scratching, and irritation are very short-term, so we can observe them easily, but if we take on the world in an objective way, we are talking about years, presumably about infinity. Even if your assumption is doing you good for 100 years, what does that mean if those 100 years are then following by more than 100,000,000 years of agony? Is it still more useful in the long run.
Or look at climate change. Provided that the models are correct, the usefulness of heavy industries is much smaller than was assumed. Sure, you could cheaply mass-produce products. But some decades later, you may see New York drown because of that.
Or look at the credit crash. People built their homes and were happy - useful. Now they can't pay back their credits, they lose their homes and also have tons of debts they hadn't had before - not useful.
My point is that you are arguing only about what you perceive in a short term, but deny the possibility of long term consequences which may completely reverse the short term ones.
EDIT: I know I should give more thought to my posts. Returning to the apple falling, let me point out that the theist claim does not make any statements about whether God will always impose that rule on apples. Therefore, the theist claim does not in itself automatically differ from the gravity claim, because it may just as easily be the result of the assumption that God wants apples to always work that way - and then you have a pattern just as much as with the gravity claim. The initial assumption I proposed did not state this clearly.
Post by: Grek on November 18, 2012, 04:59:22 am
And if you advice us to make assumptions, you are allowing us to choose something. After all, there is nothing objective to work on, so we can pick freely, what exact assumptions we make. For instance, an apple falls from a tree. I can assume that this is due to the physical law of gravity. But I can just as easily assume that it does so, because God has imposed the rule that apples fall from trees. If we do not know the objective truth, either assumption is equally possible to choose. Or rather, can you point out any reason to prefer one assumption over the other?
This is just the problem of the priors all over again. Fortunately, it's a solved problem:
At the very start of reasoning, you should rank all theories in order of complexity* so that equally simple theories are accepted equally and more simple theories are more accepted than complex theories. This gives your prior probability distribution for how likely you think each theory is to be true, or your 'priors' in short. Then you update on your priors based on evidence that you see. There are a number of justifications for why you should prefer simple theories, but I'm not going to go into them unless there's someone that disagrees with the principle of parsimony.
*Complexity in this case is based on the minimum message length formalization of Occam's Razor - the complexity of a theory is the minimum number of bits required to specify a computer program on a universal Turing machine that will output the predictions of the theory.
"Apples do not fall" is the most simple theory. But that one is disproved by seeing apples fall. So then you go on to the next simple theory: newtonian gravity. You stick with newtonian gravity until something happens that contradicts newtonian gravity. Which happened. So on to the next most simple theory: relativity. We stick with that until we find something that contradicts relativity. We haven't found anything like that yet, so we're still believing in relativity. God is way, way down on the list because God is a very complicated sort of hypothesis.
Likewise, while "God exists, but is using his/her supernatural powers to hide from us and thereby making the universe look (at least to us) like he/she does not exist" is way way more complex than "God does not exist" and as a result, we should prefer the later as our working theory given equal evidence.
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 04:59:43 am
As for this 'What is of benifit' type argument, if there is no objective scale for benefit then there is surly no down side to me enslaving you and the ones you love and having you carry out arbitrary tasks. After all, what is suffering? What is anything to do with the human condition? I think we both know the answer here, it just doesn't fit in very well with your line of thinking.
Post by: Graknorke on November 18, 2012, 05:01:54 am
Knowledge cannot cause harm in general really, only people's actions. And even then, it isn't the fault of the information, just the people who decided to take it and then cause problems with it.
Post by: Deathworks on November 18, 2012, 05:20:59 am
I am not sure whether you are correct about my thoughts. It may very well be that on the objective side, there is no downside to you enslaving me and the ones I love and making me do arbitrary tasks. It may very well be that is good if you cause suffering to me. Actually, if you go down to it, atheism itself endorses the belief that there is no downside to any decision as there is no meaning for doing or not doing something. In a world without divinity, my death or suffering is just as good as my life and happiness. And the same goes for everyone and everything else.
Objectively, I have no way to tell you not to enslave me. I only reject that option once I accept the subjective assumption that my happiness has a positive value.
Grek: A very nice approach you describe.
I have to admit that you have answered my question quite convincingly. However, this is also pointing out flaws in my argument and how I am pointing out the difference between theories and truth.
What I am trying to stress is that theories are theories and that they can at any point be disproved. And assumptions are assumptions, and any of them may be wrong or correct - otherwise they would no longer be assumptions but knowledge.
Yours,
Deathworks
EDIT: Graknorke: I already pointed out that the potential harm of the belief in gravity would lie in the possible existence of a God who may judge and punish you based on your denying their existence.
Post by: Sheb on November 18, 2012, 05:25:28 am
Post by: Hiiri on November 18, 2012, 05:28:17 am
Hello Hiiri
Greetings, Deathworks
Quote
What exactly would be a suggestion of divinity in your eyes? Given that gods are by definition a different level of existence from our own, double-guessing their motiviations and predicting their goals seems a bit difficult to me.
In that sentence I meant any of the traditional gods which are said to interact with reality.
Whoever claims such thing as "divinity" exists has the job of defining it.
Quote
Nope, there were also a lot of people who expected them to drop off the world at that time. And before the explorers set off, most people judged that the earth was flat - because you could stand steadily on it without falling away, for instance.
Most people, as in people who had no idea what they were talking about? Or most people, as in people who actually studied these subjects?
Knowing their motivation for sailing west, I would assume there were people who knew what they were talking about, and their answers weigh more than those who know nothing about the subject.
Quote
Oh, so how do you think about quantum physics, or easier, about atoms and molecules. I suppose they did not exist in the Middle Ages because they were not shown to exist yet. Or if you allow for their existence despite not having shown to exist back then, how can you disallow for the existence of divinity only by pointing out that we have not yet shown its existence?
And atoms were proposed even in Ancient Greek, so the search had been on long before the Middle Ages.
If you were unable to demonstrate the existence of atoms, then yes, it would be irrational to assume such things existed. Hypotheses are all fine, but that's all they are, hypotheses.
I hope my text isn't too painful to read, as it is to write.
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 05:33:46 am
Objectively, I have no way to tell you not to enslave me. I only reject that option once I accept the subjective assumption that my happiness has a positive value.So we are willing to accept things that might be subjective for our own arbitrary happiness? Well while I can not prove the existence of a material universe, I can assure you than accepting its existence leads to a lot more happiness than rejecting that assumption.
Will accepting there us a deity for no reason make you any happier? That there is some overlord that we must worship of be condemned to Sheol? That we must act in a 'moral fashion' by killing homosexuals and enslaving blacks and owning women?
Happiness comes from well being. Well being comes from knowledge. Knowledge comes from choosing observation over superstition. When I'm sick, I want somebody who understand chemistry and human biology to make me better, not somebody who believes really strongly that their god will help.
Post by: Grek on November 18, 2012, 05:33:46 am
The lack of divinity doesn't leave us with a lack of morality - it is entirely irrelevant to the question in the first place.
Post by: Siquo on November 18, 2012, 11:31:42 am
Will accepting there us a deity for no reason make you any happier?Well, it did, for a lot of people. The 10 commandments (give or take a few) are pretty basic to a functioning society. Having an all-powerful, all-knowing police force that can hunt you even after you died helps keeping crime levels down as well.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 18, 2012, 12:05:39 pm
If you want to turn that argument around against a theist, it's really easy. If they reject scientific evidence, then they by necessity must also reject the majority of empiricism. Anyone who rejects scientific evidence but not empiricism has some unresolved cognitive dissonance (and hopefully isn't one of those legitimately insane people who accept mutually exclusive beliefs). All mainstream religions have claims of phenomena that would be empirically measurable, such as "this dude lived at X time." Most people will side on empiricism, which means they'll retcon old stories as metaphorical, but hey.
Post by: Flying Dice on November 18, 2012, 12:39:28 pm
I am not sure whether you are correct about my thoughts. It may very well be that on the objective side, there is no downside to you enslaving me and the ones I love and making me do arbitrary tasks. It may very well be that is good if you cause suffering to me. Actually, if you go down to it, atheism itself endorses the belief that there is no downside to any decision as there is no meaning for doing or not doing something. In a world without divinity, my death or suffering is just as good as my life and happiness. And the same goes for everyone and everything else.
I've got a serious issue with this. Do you mean to suggest that the only thing which could possibly allow for the existence of objective moral truths is a deity of some sort? I know that certain sorts tend to embrace nihilism for the sake of nihilism, but it seems rather strange to dismiss moral realism out of hand. Not to mention earlier attempts at formulating an objective ethical code by, say, Kant.
In short, I don't need any sort of supernatural being threatening me with torture to recognize that there are things which are "right" and "wrong", "praiseworthy" and "blameworthy", and which are so regardless of what I would like them to be. I don't need a sword hanging over my neck to motivate me to act rightly insofar as I understand rightness. Granted, religion is a useful tool for keeping a bunch of Bronze-age commoners or medieval peasants on something resembling the straight and narrow, but it is hardly the be-all and end-all of objective morality. It's certainly easier to light a fire if you have flint and steel, but they are hardly necessary when we have lighters and matches.
"God" is one way in which an individual can recognize and process objective moral truths, not the only way.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 18, 2012, 01:10:06 pm
There is nothing in this definition that implies any kind of viewpoint regarding ethics, morality, or anything that isn't whether or not God exists. Conflating "atheism" with all kinds of non-germane things is why I don't call myself atheist when people ask. I say "I don't believe in God."
There are plenty of ethical systems that don't require a God. I would, in fact, posit that no ethical system requires a God. You may have heard the Euthyphro Dilemma: In short, is goodness good because God said so, or does God say goodness is good because it is?
In other words, is moral goodness objective, or is it defined by God? If the former, what did God do to determine these objective truths and why can't I do the same thing (Thus finding morality without God)? If the latter, goodness is contingent on the character of God and subjective. When you base your morality on this God, you're basing your morality subjectively. Everyone's morality is subjective, theists included.
Post by: bucket on November 18, 2012, 01:25:40 pm
Post by: Creaca on November 18, 2012, 01:31:02 pm
Will accepting there us a deity for no reason make you any happier?Well, it did, for a lot of people. The 10 commandments (give or take a few) are pretty basic to a functioning society. Having an all-powerful, all-knowing police force that can hunt you even after you died helps keeping crime levels down as well.
Commandments, directly from the bible verses in Exodus:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Let's break these down on how they relate to a healthy functioning society.
1. Thou Shalt have no other gods before me.
Well, that eliminates any freedom of religion. Looks like the writers of the constitution where a little iffy on this commandment too.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
And that eliminates all artwork of any kind. Looks like this one would be a real issue for Free Speech laws in a society.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
More free speech problems, still nothing that would really form or lead a society together in a meaningful way.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
The punishment for this one is covered elsewhere in the bible. DEATH. I'm certain killing people for working on Sunday is a good way to have a healthy society form.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Here we go! At number 5 and finally we find something that might be worthwhile. Of course, I'm not sure ~every~ father and mother should be unilaterally be honored. There are some real abusive conniving people out there who are absolute poison for their children.
God really should have maybe made this one more than a sentence long, it's a great though, but with no real substance.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Here we go! This is certainly good for society!
I mean, god himself doesn't follow it, what with the world wide floods, plagues, sending angels to kill people in their sleep, or ordering people to kill. Still, a good thought!
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Okay, this ones moving away from the society thing again. I mean, you certainly should break a marriage contract with someone, that's bad. But really, this is going into the top 10 commandments from god? How about no pedophilia? Or no rape at all for that matter?
8. Thou shalt not steal.
I'm down with this, stealing is bad, disrupts any health society. Good commandment, I've got no issues with this one.
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Lying is pretty bad.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
Don't want other peoples things. I don't see the issue with wanting someones stuff so long as you don't steal it. More over, this law seems more like a crime of thought, than a crime of deed. Damning people for their thoughts seems pretty darn immoral.
So, out of all of them, the only ones that seem to directly relate to society are "Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Lie". Gee, thank god 10 commandments where sent down to tell us that. I'm sure people would never figure out thatkilling, stealing, and lying are bad without those inspired tablets.
Post by: Siquo on November 18, 2012, 02:07:07 pm
Let's break these down on how they relate to a healthy functioning society.And let me point out the obvious flaws of your interpretation :)
Quote
1. Thou Shalt have no other gods before me.Yeah, agreed that this one is not really a nice one. Was a first step towards monotheism, though, as before that all gods were possible, and the concept of false god was pretty vague. Not too positive.
Well, that eliminates any freedom of religion. Looks like the writers of the constitution where a little iffy on this commandment too.
Quote
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.No, this one is specifically about images of God, gods, or demons (in heaven above and in (below) the earth). Islam is still doing this right, christians have messed this one up. God is an abstract, and not a "guy with a beard in the clouds". Specifically, a white guy. This one prevents A. imagining a God that plays favourites based on appearance (racism) and B. stops people from worshipping statues instead of an abstract (oh hi christians with Jesus imagery, you screwed that up as well (OTOH the muslims taking this too far aren't too positive either)). Not too positive, but not as negative as you make it to be.
And that eliminates all artwork of any kind. Looks like this one would be a real issue for Free Speech laws in a society.
Quote
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.Another "respect God" law. Necessary for the religion aspect, not too positive, agreed. Up until now it's mostly just "respect the police" laws, without anything that makes the police in question protect you.
More free speech problems, still nothing that would really form or lead a society together in a meaningful way.
Quote
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.Now this one was groundbreaking. Up until now, working 7 days a week was normal, this is also in a time of slavery, and people working their ass off from sun up till sun down, have-nots being exploited by the haves etc. Magically inventing a day off for everyone is a brilliant find. Telling people you should use this day for introspection and communal gatherings is also a good move. The rise of worker unions has nothing on just this one rule.
The punishment for this one is covered elsewhere in the bible. DEATH. I'm certain killing people for working on Sunday is a good way to have a healthy society form.
Very positive, maybe outdated.
Quote
5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.Yep, I've seen examples that do not warrant "honouring", but honouring your elders (not limited to parents) is generally a good thing. Having grandparents around drastically lengthened our life expectations, by the way. Very positive.
Here we go! At number 5 and finally we find something that might be worthwhile. Of course, I'm not sure ~every~ father and mother should be unilaterally be honored. There are some real abusive conniving people out there who are absolute poison for their children. God really should have maybe made this one more than a sentence long, it's a great though, but with no real substance.
Quote
6. Thou shalt not kill.Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi ;) All of them say "you", not "we"
Here we go! This is certainly good for society!
I mean, god himself doesn't follow it, what with the world wide floods, plagues, sending angels to kill people in their sleep, or ordering people to kill. Still, a good thought!
Very positive.
Quote
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.This one is actually feministic. Limiting sex to marriage guarantees that as a woman, you won't be left with a child and a father who runs away. This one is protecting the mothers, and even though the "family being the cornerstone of civilisation"-line is very cliched, that does not make it any less true.
Okay, this ones moving away from the society thing again. I mean, you certainly should break a marriage contract with someone, that's bad. But really, this is going into the top 10 commandments from god? How about no pedophilia? Or no rape at all for that matter?
Very positive.
Quote
8. Thou shalt not steal.Yep, the concept and protection of ownership is quite important in any society greater than a handful of people. (Although it messes a lot of stuff up as well)
I'm down with this, stealing is bad, disrupts any health society. Good commandment, I've got no issues with this one.
Positive.
Quote
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.This one is pretty important if you want any type of decent justice system, and specifically targets perjury. Very positive.
Lying is pretty bad.
Quote
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.Jealousy is a great source of evil. Pushing away thoughts like that is a first step in not acting on them. Thought police might not be nice, but it works.
Don't want other peoples things. I don't see the issue with wanting someones stuff so long as you don't steal it. More over, this law seems more like a crime of thought, than a crime of deed. Damning people for their thoughts seems pretty darn immoral.
Still positive.
Quote
So, out of all of them, the only ones that seem to directly relate to society are "Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Lie". Gee, thank god 10 commandments where sent down to tell us that. I'm sure people would never figure out thatkilling, stealing, and lying are bad without those inspired tablets.Well, you have to see it in the time they were made. Kings and powerful men could kill with impunity. Having actual divine laws, suddenly means that they too were subject to these laws. They needed to be simple, succinct, and to the point for them to "stick" and be memorable to everyone (do you know all the laws of your country? Exactly).
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 02:10:08 pm
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.No. Don't do this.
Post by: Supercharazad on November 18, 2012, 02:13:52 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 02:15:46 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on November 18, 2012, 02:17:38 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 02:22:30 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 18, 2012, 02:48:19 pm
Hello!On one hand it is a name based on what you don't believe in, which is a very uncommon way of identifying things, by what they aren't.I have to disagree with you there. You are mixing agnosticism with atheism there. Atheism means that you believe in the non-existence of any gods/divine beings. It does not refer to the other options but rather states clearly what you believe in: a completely mundane world.QuoteSecondly, religion is based on faith, atheism isn't.
Once you have found a way to disprove the existence of divinity without using axioms inherent of atheism, your statement would be correct. But as it stands, atheism requires just as much faith as religion. Atheists believe there is no divinity, just as much as Christians believe in the existence of the Christian god, and neither side has any better proof for their belief than the other side.
I have to also disagree there. Atheism is not the assertion that gods don't exist, but that there is no belief in gods exist because there is no good reason to believe in them. You can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. I an an Atheist but I don't believe in a mundane world, I just don't believe in all the supernatural suggestions put forth so far. Also, ghosts are not gods, therefore some atheists can believe in the supernatural.
And you do not need faith to believe there are no gods. Do you consider the belief that gravity exists to be based on faith? Because gravity hasn't been proven. Nothing really has.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 18, 2012, 02:53:37 pm
And you do not need faith to believe there are no gods. Do you consider the belief that gravity exists to be based on faith? Because gravity hasn't been proven. Nothing really has.Uh, there's a pretty significant difference between inductive reasoning (IE, "within reasonable doubt") and belief in something with zero evidence whatsoever.
Have a non-theistic example: String theory. Would you claim those who support the theory to be doing so on faith? It's still within the realm of possibility, but is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested thoroughly, ss evidence to prove it is pretty damn hard to come by.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 18, 2012, 02:55:42 pm
And of course, the only part of my post that's apparently even been noticed was semantics. Seriously.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 03:17:31 pm
Have a non-theistic example: String theory. Would you claim those who support the theory to be doing so on faith? It's still within the realm of possibility, but is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested thoroughly, ss evidence to prove it is pretty damn hard to come by.There are two key differences between religious beliefs and scientific hypotheses (or at least decent scientific hypotheses such as string theory).
1. Scientific hypotheses explain a discrepancy in our current understanding. String theory actually explains all of our current observations, so it does well in this regard. Religious beliefs do not (Intelligent Design had a stab at it but was thoroughly shot down in a court of law).
2. The proponents of scientific hypotheses are expected to look for ways to test their hypotheses. IE, even though string theory is currently untestable, it's not untestable in theory. String theory proponents, for instance, come up with predictions for particle collision experiments. So far our particle collision experiments have not been high energy enough to provide much evidence one way or the other, but in the future we will probably be able to do these experiments. Compare this to religious beliefs, where not only is there no effort made to come up with ways to test them, but there is an active effort to make sure that the beliefs can never be tested by any experiment ever (Creationism is an exception, but that only works if you ignore pretty much all the evidence).
Post by: Fenrir on November 18, 2012, 03:32:42 pm
Imagine those sailors again, and let’s again forget that they knew that the Earth was round, and that the circumference of the Earth was first estimated in 240 BC. They have never been beyond the edge of the map, so they don’t really know what is there. They do know that none of their companions on this side of the pond have been beyond the edge of the map either, so when these people insist that there is a giant wizard that lives on the other end that made the sea and loves all of those that live in it, the sailors are rather confident that they’re wrong, because ignorant guesses about alien regions are rather likely to be wrong.
It’s why I assign a probability between ~0.6 and ~0.9 that there is no God, no Thor, no Zeus, no Quetzalcoatl, and no Cthulthu, and it’s why I call myself an atheist. That last deity isn’t out of place—thinking that your story is real does not make it more likely to be true, so, in the great absence of evidence, the fact that Lovecraft meant it to be fiction makes no difference.
Post by: Micro102 on November 18, 2012, 03:41:06 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 03:43:26 pm
Post by: Fenrir on November 18, 2012, 03:49:19 pm
Well I define faith as believing in something without any good reason, aka evidence. How is religion not faith based?I didn’t say “religion”, I mentioned atheism and theism, neither of which are religions, and I am not using your definition of the word faith. When people say that something is “faith-based”, they mean that the believers don’t care about the evidence or the logic, they just “have faith” that they’re right. They just trust that God is or is not real.
Post by: Grek on November 18, 2012, 03:55:58 pm
It’s why I assign a probability between ~0.6 and ~0.9 that there is no God, no Thor, no Zeus, no Quetzalcoatl, and no Cthulthu, and it’s why I call myself an atheist. That last deity isn’t out of place—thinking that your story is real does not make it more likely to be true, so, in the great absence of evidence, the fact that Lovecraft meant it to be fiction makes no difference.
I think you're being too generous with your probabilities here. 0.6 probability that a god does not exist equals a 0.3 probability that the god does exist. So if you assign that probability to God, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and Cthulthu, that means you believe with probability between 0.41 and 0.92 that at least one of those gods exists. Which seems a bit high.
I'd personally put my probability for "God X does not exist" around 0.999 in most cases.
Post by: Fenrir on November 18, 2012, 04:00:12 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 04:01:35 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on November 18, 2012, 04:03:30 pm
Post by: Pnx on November 18, 2012, 04:10:05 pm
Imagine those sailors again, and let’s again forget that they knew that the Earth was round, and that the circumference of the Earth was first estimated in 240 BC. They have never been beyond the edge of the map, so they don’t really know what is there. They do know that none of their companions on this side of the pond have been beyond the edge of the map either, so when these people insist that there is a giant wizard that lives on the other end that made the sea and loves all of those that live in it, the sailors are rather confident that they’re wrong, because ignorant guesses about alien regions are rather likely to be wrong.Eh, I'd like to point out that a lot of early people were pretty sure the earth was round long before people circled the earth. If you create detailed star charts, you start to notice the patterns in the stars movements, which describe a series of circles that seem to be circling over the horizon. Measure the stars like that in two spots, one southerly, one northerly, and you start to get a pretty clear picture of things.
Then using a few measurements, and some math, you can even figure out the circumference of the earth. Which Columbus then botched into thinking Asia was closer than it was, and led to his accidental discovery of a new continent.
Post by: Creaca on November 18, 2012, 04:11:40 pm
Let's break these down on how they relate to a healthy functioning society.And let me point out the obvious flaws of your interpretation :)Quote1. Thou Shalt have no other gods before me.Yeah, agreed that this one is not really a nice one. Was a first step towards monotheism, though, as before that all gods were possible, and the concept of false god was pretty vague. Not too positive.
Well, that eliminates any freedom of religion. Looks like the writers of the constitution where a little iffy on this commandment too.Quote2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.No, this one is specifically about images of God, gods, or demons (in heaven above and in (below) the earth). Islam is still doing this right, christians have messed this one up. God is an abstract, and not a "guy with a beard in the clouds". Specifically, a white guy. This one prevents A. imagining a God that plays favourites based on appearance (racism) and B. stops people from worshipping statues instead of an abstract (oh hi christians with Jesus imagery, you screwed that up as well (OTOH the muslims taking this too far aren't too positive either)). Not too positive, but not as negative as you make it to be.
And that eliminates all artwork of any kind. Looks like this one would be a real issue for Free Speech laws in a society.Quote3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.Another "respect God" law. Necessary for the religion aspect, not too positive, agreed. Up until now it's mostly just "respect the police" laws, without anything that makes the police in question protect you.
More free speech problems, still nothing that would really form or lead a society together in a meaningful way.Quote4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.Now this one was groundbreaking. Up until now, working 7 days a week was normal, this is also in a time of slavery, and people working their ass off from sun up till sun down, have-nots being exploited by the haves etc. Magically inventing a day off for everyone is a brilliant find. Telling people you should use this day for introspection and communal gatherings is also a good move. The rise of worker unions has nothing on just this one rule.
The punishment for this one is covered elsewhere in the bible. DEATH. I'm certain killing people for working on Sunday is a good way to have a healthy society form.
Very positive, maybe outdated.Quote5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.Yep, I've seen examples that do not warrant "honouring", but honouring your elders (not limited to parents) is generally a good thing. Having grandparents around drastically lengthened our life expectations, by the way. Very positive.
Here we go! At number 5 and finally we find something that might be worthwhile. Of course, I'm not sure ~every~ father and mother should be unilaterally be honored. There are some real abusive conniving people out there who are absolute poison for their children. God really should have maybe made this one more than a sentence long, it's a great though, but with no real substance.Quote6. Thou shalt not kill.Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi ;) All of them say "you", not "we"
Here we go! This is certainly good for society!
I mean, god himself doesn't follow it, what with the world wide floods, plagues, sending angels to kill people in their sleep, or ordering people to kill. Still, a good thought!
Very positive.Quote7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.This one is actually feministic. Limiting sex to marriage guarantees that as a woman, you won't be left with a child and a father who runs away. This one is protecting the mothers, and even though the "family being the cornerstone of civilisation"-line is very cliched, that does not make it any less true.
Okay, this ones moving away from the society thing again. I mean, you certainly should break a marriage contract with someone, that's bad. But really, this is going into the top 10 commandments from god? How about no pedophilia? Or no rape at all for that matter?
Very positive.Quote8. Thou shalt not steal.Yep, the concept and protection of ownership is quite important in any society greater than a handful of people. (Although it messes a lot of stuff up as well)
I'm down with this, stealing is bad, disrupts any health society. Good commandment, I've got no issues with this one.
Positive.Quote9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.This one is pretty important if you want any type of decent justice system, and specifically targets perjury. Very positive.
Lying is pretty bad.Quote10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.Jealousy is a great source of evil. Pushing away thoughts like that is a first step in not acting on them. Thought police might not be nice, but it works.
Don't want other peoples things. I don't see the issue with wanting someones stuff so long as you don't steal it. More over, this law seems more like a crime of thought, than a crime of deed. Damning people for their thoughts seems pretty darn immoral.
Still positive.QuoteSo, out of all of them, the only ones that seem to directly relate to society are "Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Lie". Gee, thank god 10 commandments where sent down to tell us that. I'm sure people would never figure out thatkilling, stealing, and lying are bad without those inspired tablets.Well, you have to see it in the time they were made. Kings and powerful men could kill with impunity. Having actual divine laws, suddenly means that they too were subject to these laws. They needed to be simple, succinct, and to the point for them to "stick" and be memorable to everyone (do you know all the laws of your country? Exactly).
Kings used gods as an excuse as to why they could rule and lead with the authority and power they had. Look at the Pharaohs, Russian Czars, The Kings of England, Spain, Germany, and France!
As for these laws being known to the general public, highly unlikely, at least not for Christians. The Holy Bible was written chiefly in Latin at the from the formation of the Catholic Church, up to the creation of King James Bible. Only monks and priests trained to read and/or speak Latin could understand the readings from the bible in Mass, or read the Bible itself. In fact, it was a crime punishable by death or excommunication (or both) to translate the bible. The Catholic Church just recently made a man a saint who sentenced people to death for just such a crime.
What's more, laws being memorable is pointless if the laws don't include basic procedural information on how to follow them, or account for other circumstances. (Read a law recently? "Don't sell drugs" Is not what you'll find.) Anyhow, on to some of your pointing out of obvious flaws.
No, this one is specifically about images of God, gods, or demons (in heaven above and in (below) the earth). Islam is still doing this right, christians have messed this one up. God is an abstract, and not a "guy with a beard in the clouds". Specifically, a white guy. This one prevents A. imagining a God that plays favorites based on appearance (racism) and B. stops people from worshiping statues instead of an abstract (oh hi christians with Jesus imagery, you screwed that up as well (OTOH the muslims taking this too far aren't too positive either)). Not too positive, but not as negative as you make it to be.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
The heaven is above, the earth is beneath that. It even further points out it means the surface of the earth by pointing out the oceans are beneath that. Unless you want to imply there is a watery super-hell underneath the other one.
Also, I didn't even have to shove in an extra word to get to that conclusion.
I understand why Christians dislike this law, what it implies is pretty horrific. I however, don't like the mental gymnastics that are used to try and ignore it, or make it into something it isn't.
Now this one was groundbreaking. Up until now, working 7 days a week was normal, this is also in a time of slavery, and people working their ass off from sun up till sun down, have-nots being exploited by the haves etc. Magically inventing a day off for everyone is a brilliant find. Telling people you should use this day for introspection and communal gatherings is also a good move. The rise of worker unions has nothing on just this one rule.Again, the punishment for breaking this death. The bible actually tells the story of a man being put to death for simply picking up some sticks on Saturday. Oh, and this commandment was basically ignored by Christians. The Israelites followed it, including the ridiculous punishment for it.
Very positive, maybe outdated.
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi ;) All of them say "you", not "we"You on one hand lament that kings could get away with all kinds of murder and explotation, yet you don't even flinch when a being of supposed infinite morality, handing down laws to live by, has no issue breaking them himself, or telling other people to do so? Shit, he's a hypocrite for the 8th commandment too, Jesus ordered his servants to steal a donkey.
Very positive.
Jealousy is a great source of evil. Pushing away thoughts like that is a first step in not acting on them. Thought police might not be nice, but it works.First. " for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"
Still positive.
Secondly. You're can't suggest that this commandment couldn't have been replaced by something more useful to society. Hate to harp on it, but rape would certainly be a big one.
Thirdly. Thought crimes are insane, because your punishing someone for a victimless crime. Saying that making it a law for someone to not think something is a positive law, is crazy.
Post by: Grek on November 18, 2012, 04:15:24 pm
You've just moved into a new house. Your new next-door neighbor, Sam, says that the little old lady who lives down the road is a witch and will curse anyone who owns a blue car. You have a blue car. You don't want cursed, conditional on curses existing, but you also don't want to have to paint your car. How do you decide whether or not it's worth it to paint your car?
Probabilities! Your evidence with regards to the existence of witches and witch curses should tell you that witches probably do not exist - if they did exist, you'd have heard about more (and more credible) cases of witches cursing people, and the law books would have statues against using magic to assault people. None of that happens, so you conclude Sam is crazy, joking, drunk or something and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Even if it's just a gut probability instead of a formal number, you should at least have some notion of how likely you think the theory is for every theory that exists.
Also, @Creaca: Spoiler tags, please!
Post by: Fenrir on November 18, 2012, 04:18:17 pm
Post by: Grek on November 18, 2012, 04:20:26 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2012, 04:23:32 pm
Even if it's just a gut probability instead of a formal number, you should at least have some notion of how likely you think the theory is for every theory that exists.I broadly agree, but if a theory makes no predictions there is no evidence to go on and thus no way to assign a meaningful probability. EG: try to give me a probability on "there is an invisible, intangible unicorn in the forest that has absolutely no observable qualities".
It goes into "Arbitrarily low/ doesn't matter" for me.
Post by: lemon10 on November 18, 2012, 05:10:53 pm
This allows killings in wars, as punishment, as well as when you are ordered too (since I don't think that would count as murder).
It is a good commandment, but hardly groundbreaking, especially since it doesn't actually prohibit those who have the power to order people executed from executing them for whatever they feel like (since while they do kill them, it isn't really considered murder).
Post by: SealyStar on November 18, 2012, 05:32:43 pm
I will note that "Thou shall not kill" is a mistranslation. It really is supposed to read "Thou shall not murder".
This allows killings in wars, as punishment, as well as when you are ordered too (since I don't think that would count as murder).
It is a good commandment, but hardly groundbreaking, especially since it doesn't actually prohibit those who have the power to order people executed from executing them for whatever they feel like (since while they do kill them, it isn't really considered murder).
Speaking of bizarre [mis]translations, I was just thinking about the traditional English translation of the Lord's Prayer.
I'm not sure if it's supposed to be poetic or just a bizarre convention, but the nature of the Greek/Latin subjunctive was apparently forgotten in the translation to modern English, creating bizarre constructions like "Hallowed be thy name", instead of "May thy name be hallowed", "Thy kingdom come", instead of "May thy kingdom come", "Thy will be done" instead of "May thy will be done", etc.
Post by: Frumple on November 18, 2012, 05:42:47 pm
The meaning changes a bit, too.
Post by: Pnx on November 18, 2012, 05:50:45 pm
Post by: Creaca on November 18, 2012, 06:24:20 pm
I will note that "Thou shall not kill" is a mistranslation. It really is supposed to read "Thou shall not murder".
This allows killings in wars, as punishment, as well as when you are ordered too (since I don't think that would count as murder).
It is a good commandment, but hardly groundbreaking, especially since it doesn't actually prohibit those who have the power to order people executed from executing them for whatever they feel like (since while they do kill them, it isn't really considered murder).
I hear this all the time, and I'm not really sure where they get it from. Kill is translated from 'ratsach', if you look into other places in the bible, the word 'ratsach' is also used when god puts people to death. So if it is "Thou shalt not murder." The bible accuses god of murder. :s
What's more, the commandments are a series of laws, when you realize the meaning of murder is Unlawful Killing, you get a commandment that says "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully."
Post by: lemon10 on November 18, 2012, 07:23:13 pm
I hear this all the time, and I'm not really sure where they get it from. Kill is translated from 'ratsach', if you look into other places in the bible, the word 'ratsach' is also used when god puts people to death. So if it is "Thou shalt not murder." The bible accuses god of murder. :s
What's more, the commandments are a series of laws, when you realize the meaning of murder is Unlawful Killing, you get a commandment that says "It is unlawful to kill unlawfully."
Quote from: Wikipedia
Retzach
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach.[2] The code even includes accidental killing as a form of retzach.[3]
The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5] The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit retzach.[6][7]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12.
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8, and also when Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
And some other site that interprets it the same way. (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html)
From a little searching, it appears that most sources view it this way.
Post by: Creaca on November 18, 2012, 07:50:01 pm
However, your other less biased source points out that it can literally translate to killing or slaying in addition to murder. And in fact simply the act of killing with a weapon can be considered retzach. It even points out that Moses, prophet of god commits retzach on an Egyptian man. It doesn't really forward your point at all, though I suppose it muddies the water.
In addition, as I said before, even if it did mean to Murder, you'd have a law telling you to follow whatever worldly laws define unlawful killing, which isn't very useful.
Post by: Starver on November 18, 2012, 08:06:29 pm
You are mixing agnosticism with atheism there. Atheism means that you believe in the non-existence of any gods/divine beings.
A-theism or Athe-ism? Personally I self-identify as atheist and I am a "not-GodBeliever" rather than a "NotGod-believer". Weak atheist, implicit atheist, whatever you want to call it, I'm an atheist who is not a "devout disbeliever".
I'd be sceptical, in the less populist sense of the word, if I imagined that there'd be anything that could definitively prove the situation either way. As such I also self-identify myself as agnostic (there's no way of truly knowing, one way or another) and apatheistic (there is nothing special I should be doing) and various other things that some people still persist in assuming lie on the "Theist->Atheist" axis (with Agnostic apparently being in the middle), but which I personally treat as being on different axes altogether, providing for any number of viewpoints (the devout believer who acknowledges that he can't prove his belief, the person who does nothing to adhere to a religion but is eagerly awaiting a 'sign' to latch onto, etc, etc).
edit: Turns out I was ninjaed almost immediately with other posts of this kind... Sorry, but I've been getting so many 504 Gateway Errors on the forums, tonight, that I got out of the habit of reading ahead at all, before posting...
Post by: Starver on November 18, 2012, 08:41:59 pm
Nope, there were also a lot of people who expected them to drop off the world at that time. And before the explorers set off, most people judged that the earth was flat - because you could stand steadily on it without falling away, for instance.
I didn't see anything said on the remainder of the page on which this post appeared, but I do hope that someone has disabused you of this, as well. Sailors (and many others) knew well enough that the world was round. Some of the more theologically inclined (but by no means all, as there are famous exceptions) might have had reasons to maintain it was flat, and your average peasant just had no reason to be bothered, but practically involved people like sailors and other traders will have had the evidence in front of their own eyes all the time if they considered it.
How round, was usually the question. (The oft-mentioned Eratosthenes was apparently surprisingly close, but as we may have back-calculated the particular unit of measurement he used, it's hard to know whether the cart is before the horse or not.) Anyway, Columbus thought he'd gotten further around the Earth than he had (regardless of how far he actually thought he'd be going), and it was before actual Longitudes could be measured either. And he was useless at what geography knowledge there was, but that's another story. ;)
Post by: Micro102 on November 18, 2012, 08:55:37 pm
Well I define faith as believing in something without any good reason, aka evidence. How is religion not faith based?I didn’t say “religion”, I mentioned atheism and theism, neither of which are religions, and I am not using your definition of the word faith. When people say that something is “faith-based”, they mean that the believers don’t care about the evidence or the logic, they just “have faith” that they’re right. They just trust that God is or is not real.
Is theism not the belief in a god or deity? How is that NOT a religion?
What would you define faith as?
Post by: Starver on November 18, 2012, 09:04:28 pm
Quote7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.This one is actually feministic. Limiting sex to marriage guarantees that as a woman, you won't be left with a child and a father who runs away. This one is protecting the mothers, and even though the "family being the cornerstone of civilisation"-line is very cliched, that does not make it any less true.
Okay, this ones moving away from the society thing again. I mean, you certainly should break a marriage contract with someone, that's bad. But really, this is going into the top 10 commandments from god? How about no pedophilia? Or no rape at all for that matter?
Very positive.
Only if the term "adultery" (in whatever original language and connotation it arises from) covers all extra-marital sex (i.e. including the pre-marital stuff). A married man and a (differently) married woman reproducing actually doesn't do too much harm in itself, and as such conceivably (NPI!) leaves the child with a caring father even if not their biological one. (The woman's actual husband might have objections of his own if he ever deduces or is otherwise informed of any deception that took place, to which the "Do Not Lie" commandment would either be most appropriate or most counter-productive, depending on circumstances. Without the serious examination of physical traits or anything that would later become genetics/etc, I'm sure there were very happy lineages that were different on paper to what reality actually was, in the long-run.)
While there obviously will have been a prohibition against pre-marital relationships (and probably the historical equivalent of shotgun weddings to sort out some of those that did happen, I don't believe these are covered at all in any modern reading of the ten commandments, although I'm sure an interested party can still find something in Leviticus, or elsewhere, to justify the resulting societal condemnation.
(Yeah, still catching up a bit. But now I've started to chatter on this long-watched thread, it appears I'm addicted to doing so.)
Post by: Fenrir on November 18, 2012, 09:18:52 pm
Is theism not the belief in a god or deity? How is that NOT a religion?Thinking that there is a sapient being that created everything does not necessarily imply worship.
What would you define faith as?
Riddle me this: if theism is a religion, doesn’t that mean that Christianity, Islam, and Asatru are all the same religion? Or does that mean that Christianity, Islam, Asatru, and Theism are all religions? Which is the more popular religion, Christianity or Theism?
The word faith is used to mean a great trust or belief. As I said, “faith-based belief” is a belief that eschews logic and evidence completely and sustains itself with only trust.
Post by: Micro102 on November 18, 2012, 10:01:46 pm
Is theism not the belief in a god or deity? How is that NOT a religion?Thinking that there is a sapient being that created everything does not necessarily imply worship.
What would you define faith as?
Riddle me this: if theism is a religion, doesn’t that mean that Christianity, Islam, and Asatru are all the same religion? Or does that mean that Christianity, Islam, Asatru, and Theism are all religions? Which is the more popular religion, Christianity or Theism?
The word faith is used to mean a great trust or belief. As I said, “faith-based belief” is a belief that eschews logic and evidence completely and sustains itself with only trust.
Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion. But I don't understand how that means that theism is "not a faith-based belief"
Post by: penguify on November 18, 2012, 11:34:42 pm
If you had sufficient evidence, it wouldn't be faith based. And different people may have different ideas of 'sufficient'.Is theism not the belief in a god or deity? How is that NOT a religion?Thinking that there is a sapient being that created everything does not necessarily imply worship.
What would you define faith as?
Riddle me this: if theism is a religion, doesn’t that mean that Christianity, Islam, and Asatru are all the same religion? Or does that mean that Christianity, Islam, Asatru, and Theism are all religions? Which is the more popular religion, Christianity or Theism?
The word faith is used to mean a great trust or belief. As I said, “faith-based belief” is a belief that eschews logic and evidence completely and sustains itself with only trust.
Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion. But I don't understand how that means that theism is "not a faith-based belief"
Also, if you put your faith/trust in a different entity, such as a priest, and only believed because they told you it was the truth. It would still qualify as 'faith-based', but only if you used a very loose definition of faith.
Post by: Max White on November 18, 2012, 11:41:52 pm
If you are debating to try and be the winner, you are doing it wrong.
Either that or some people are just bad at reading and interpreting others posts... Seriously, " if theism is a religion, doesn’t that mean that Christianity, Islam, and Asatru are all the same religion?" How do you even misread that poorly?
Post by: Fenrir on November 19, 2012, 12:39:42 am
And I don’t misread poorly at all. I misread just fine, thank you.
Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion.Unless you and I are using the term “belief” differently, this looks like a contradiction, as theism is believing in a god.
Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion.It doesn’t; it was a separate point.
But I don't understand how that means that theism is "not a faith-based belief"
Post by: Grek on November 19, 2012, 01:10:01 am
-faith
-faith-based
-religion
-theism
-atheism
-evidence
-proof
-belief
-sufficient
-trust
-philosophical
-sapient
-adultery
-murder
-god
-deity
-any name of any specific religion
-any synonym of the above
Post by: Deathworks on November 19, 2012, 04:01:59 am
I want to apologize and inform Max White and all the others who have taken the time and invested the effort to read my posts and respond to them, that I am opting out of this thread.
I don't have enough time to act appropriately in this thread.
I am also obviously not skilled enough to express my views correctly enough to live up to the high standards of the discussion here.
Therefore, please do not be surprised and forgive me if I will no longer respond in this thread. Thank you for being willing to discuss things with me, and I hope to talk with you in other threads on these boards.
Yours,
Deathworks
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 01:25:28 pm
Hrm, ok, lets try reaching an agreement on a definition of theism. "The belief in a god, which can be a category religions fall under"Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion.Unless you and I are using the term “belief” differently, this looks like a contradiction, as theism is believing in a god.Sorry, I didn't mean theism itself was a religion, but simply believing in a god is a religion.It doesn’t; it was a separate point.
But I don't understand how that means that theism is "not a faith-based belief"
Quote
If you had sufficient evidence, it wouldn't be faith based. And different people may have different ideas of 'sufficient'.There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a god aside from personal experiences, but alien abductees have been convinced they have been abducted by aliens as well.
Post by: Frumple on November 19, 2012, 01:31:43 pm
'Course, then you have to figure out what you mean by "divine" and, well. Just like "god" it's something that can vary by system.
"Which can be a category religions fall under" is kinda' a useless addendum, though. What isn't?
Post by: Siquo on November 19, 2012, 01:37:06 pm
There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a <anything> aside from personal experiences.FTFY, Now it's an argument usable by anyone for everything :)
Post by: Owlbread on November 19, 2012, 01:41:23 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 01:43:51 pm
There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a <anything> aside from personal experiences.FTFY, Now it's an argument usable by anyone for everything :)
How? I can put a piece of wood up to fire and watch it burn, and demonstrate to others that the wood can catch fire, and that it turns black. And this can also be replicated by other people.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 19, 2012, 01:44:25 pm
A creator of the universe/deity/whatever could exist. He could also not exist. Why then would I automatically assume that he does exist, and not only that, he is the god of the bible or qu'ran or torah or guru granth sahib? Why not something else entirely?Personally, I think if a deity exists, he's likely a total jerkass with less empathy toward us than we have toward our dwarves in dwarf fortress.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 19, 2012, 01:47:29 pm
How are certain these real people exist? What leads you to believe that there's someone who's writing this post. What if this is actually a hallucination, or a simulation, or a dream.There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a <anything> aside from personal experiences.FTFY, Now it's an argument usable by anyone for everything :)
How? I can put a piece of wood up to fire and watch it burn, and demonstrate to others that the wood can catch fire, and that it turns black. And this can also be replicated by other people.
Besides, why is everything so focused on the question wherether or not God exists? Does it matter? It doesn't for me.
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 01:49:33 pm
How are certain these real people exist? What leads you to believe that there's someone who's writing this post. What if this is actually a hallucination, or a simulation, or a dream.There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a <anything> aside from personal experiences.FTFY, Now it's an argument usable by anyone for everything :)
How? I can put a piece of wood up to fire and watch it burn, and demonstrate to others that the wood can catch fire, and that it turns black. And this can also be replicated by other people.
It could be, but what is the evidence for that? I can touch people, see people. Evidence is gotten from the senses, therefore I believe that this isn't a virtual world.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 19, 2012, 01:51:04 pm
I was just proving that you can't prove anything without axioms, one of which are your personal experiences.It could be, but what is the evidence for that? I can touch people, see people. Evidence is gotten from the senses, therefore I believe that this isn't a virtual world.How are certain these real people exist? What leads you to believe that there's someone who's writing this post. What if this is actually a hallucination, or a simulation, or a dream.There is almost 0 evidence for an existence of a <anything> aside from personal experiences.FTFY, Now it's an argument usable by anyone for everything :)
How? I can put a piece of wood up to fire and watch it burn, and demonstrate to others that the wood can catch fire, and that it turns black. And this can also be replicated by other people.
Also VR tech can simulate touchy feeling things. (with enough money put into it itmight even be realistic)
Post by: Sheb on November 19, 2012, 02:12:40 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 19, 2012, 02:16:34 pm
We had that argument already, and the result was that yes, we need axioms, but we should use as few as possible.
God makes everything happen just the way it does because it's part of his higher plan that we mortals can't understand.
is:
1. A Single axiom (Or maybe 4-5 , depending on how you count)
2. A perfect explanation for everything
It's however terrible at explaining anything. Luckily, that's not the point of the Bible, nor are religion. There's no science in scripture, and there has never been any science in scripture. Counts for myths and the like too.
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 02:29:48 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on November 19, 2012, 02:31:42 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 19, 2012, 04:49:18 pm
Ditch the epistemology. We're not talking about that again.
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 04:52:25 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 19, 2012, 05:15:31 pm
Was there some sort of controversy involved or something? Why are you bringing it up?
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 19, 2012, 05:32:38 pm
Post by: dei on November 19, 2012, 05:40:13 pm
Furthermore a person's personal beliefs could be a religion unto themselves. Therefore since no two people believe the exact same thing for the most part there are as many individual religions as there are people. I therefore follow my own religion because I believe in my own personal paradigm.
That is all I really wanted to say. The lot of you will probably believe something different, but that is because you each have your own personal paradigm, your own religion. That means that no matter what something will conflict and therefore will not be agreeable, as I expect a lot of what I have to say is to the majority of those I interact with.
Oh well. I'm going to go get something to eat.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 19, 2012, 05:44:18 pm
Post by: Grek on November 19, 2012, 06:14:34 pm
I continue to maintain that we shouldn't count by number of axioms but by minimum message length for this exact reason.We had that argument already, and the result was that yes, we need axioms, but we should use as few as possible.
God makes everything happen just the way it does because it's part of his higher plan that we mortals can't understand.
is:
1. A Single axiom (Or maybe 4-5 , depending on how you count)
2. A perfect explanation for everything
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 19, 2012, 06:36:26 pm
Please please please do some statement definition in the OP. Fenrir's posts about Connotation Smuggling were funny but I don't think we can rely on those forever.
I think I'm just going to start enforcing the "no semantic arguments" rule. Wait, I don't have one of those here. I guess a certain amount of semantics comes with such a nebulous topic. I think I could make one that fits.
- Are your arguments based solely in language? Do they have no point besides shifting different people into different categories that have no real effect on what that person does or thinks? If so, it's too semantic. Don't do it.
That seems pretty functional. Statement definition might still be necessary, but as someone who's kind of opinionated on some statement definitions I don't want to just choose what I want because that'll naturally favor people who agree with me. But still, having people spend a dozen pages on whether or not atheism/theism/feminism are religions is just kind of stupid. Any suggestions on what to do here?
Post by: Flying Dice on November 19, 2012, 06:52:54 pm
Namely:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That would probably reduce some of the semantics wankery, and (I don't think?) that anyone seriously disputes those, though obviously the third is rather focused on Abrahamic and Classical faiths. They could probably be refined a bit, but having common definitions for something that central would do wonders for reducing misunderstanding and semantic games. Just my two cents.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 19, 2012, 07:00:43 pm
That would probably reduce some of the semantics wankery, and (I don't think?) that anyone seriously disputes thoseAs we've seen many times before that first definition is very problematic as it doesn't line up with actual everyday usage (eg: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist under it, same applies to almost every prominent atheist you care to name).
Post by: Flying Dice on November 19, 2012, 07:03:50 pm
Mandated definitions help eliminate the cause of semantic arguments, so I think they're helpful.As I said, they're not necessarily ideal. We do, however, need some sort of starting point from which to work towards mutually acceptable definitions of terms. It would certainly represent more progress than another dozen pages or so of people arguing without a common basis of understanding.That would probably reduce some of the semantics wankery, and (I don't think?) that anyone seriously disputes thoseAs we've seen many times before that first definition is very problematic as it doesn't line up with actual everyday usage (eg: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist under it, same applies to almost every prominent atheist you care to name).
Post by: Leafsnail on November 19, 2012, 07:11:34 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 19, 2012, 07:34:01 pm
"It's been over a decade, now. Can we just flipping move on, please?" My mostly canned response to anything 9/11 related at this point. I tone it down a lil' for folks that actually lost people. A little. It's still been over a decade. Most sympathy dries up at that point, and becomes concern you're still grieving about it.
Was there some sort of controversy involved or something? Why are you bringing it up?
Sorry I thought it was more commonly known. Basically an atheist organization is trying (or still is, as I haven't seen any news on it) to pass a lawsuit on the museum about the incident because they want to put the cross in and since it is funded by the government, to either remove the cross, or allow other symbols of belief to be allowed in the museum, as it was not a christian event, and Christians weren't the only ones to die there. Otherwise it's against the separation of church and state.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 19, 2012, 07:47:37 pm
Active atheism being the specific belief that there is no god, passive atheism being the absence of a belief in god.
Thus while a rock is a passive atheist (as it is unable to believe in anything at all), someone like Dawkins would be an active atheist. Note also that active atheism does not require you to believe that a god is impossible, merely that on balance it's unlikely enough to consider non-existence of gods the more sensible option.
Another definition that will probably help is Agnostic; someone who holds that the question of the existence of god is unsolved and ultimately unsolvable, at least in our current existence.
Finally, I'm not sure I'd agree with the religious definition; you don't have to *worship* a given supernatural power, for starters. Given wikipedia also lists at least one religion that is basically "aliens made us", even the supernatural requirement is a bit iffy. Of course, damned if I can come up with a good alternative...
Post by: MaximumZero on November 19, 2012, 08:35:36 pm
Post by: Muz on November 19, 2012, 09:03:08 pm
Atheism = doesn't believe in gods
Theism = believes in > 0 gods
Hard or soft doesn't really matter; those are lines many people will cross several times a year.
Active or passive doesn't really matter either. Many atheists insist that 'passive atheism' is in people's nature, so by classifying people as 'active atheists', you're insulting a lot of them :P
Post by: Hiiri on November 19, 2012, 09:36:28 pm
Doesn't have to be complicated.
Atheism = doesn't believe in gods
Theism = believes in > 0 gods
Hard or soft doesn't really matter; those are lines many people will cross several times a year.
Active or passive doesn't really matter either. Many atheists insist that 'passive atheism' is in people's nature, so by classifying people as 'active atheists', you're insulting a lot of them :P
Thank you! It's redundant (and frustrating) to try to put people into smaller and smaller boxes. All atheists are in "don't believe in god(s)"-box, and that's all that's relevant. If it's relevant at all.
- So you don't believe in Santa? Which type of asantaclausist are you, soft or hard? Do you claim there is no Santa or do you withhold belief until evidence presents itself?
- Oh I'm agnostic soft asantaclausist.
::)
Post by: Frumple on November 19, 2012, 09:49:44 pm
That's kinda' why it can cause such circular tail chasing trying to nail down comfortable definitions for a lot of this stuff. Devil's in the details and all that rot, and painting with too wide a brush makes for a messy, too inaccurate picture.
Post by: Osmosis Jones on November 19, 2012, 09:58:29 pm
You can have pretty significant conceptual differences in those "smaller boxes," though, and depending on how they fall it can have a notable relevance to a particular discussion. It's kinda' like how there can be a pretty tremendous difference between a Christian theist and a Hindu theist, ferex, or a monotheist and someone like Spinoza. All theists? Sure. Same sort of belief system? Only very remotely.
That's kinda' why it can cause such circular tail chasing trying to nail down comfortable definitions for a lot of this stuff. Devil's in the details and all that rot, and painting with too wide a brush makes for a messy, too inaccurate picture.
Precisely. It's why, for example, a lot of agnostics hate getting called atheists. They are, but they're so used to atheism being associated with the strong atheist subset that they assume that's what is being implied. Hell, that one distinction is actually the most common problem I encounter when I'm talking about atheism in general.
Well, that and the conflation with misotheism ::)
Edit; How the hell do I keep spelling every form of -theist right except for atheist?!
Post by: Muz on November 20, 2012, 02:37:14 am
There are a lot of people who identify weakly with religious lines. By some definitions, a Muslim who does not pray 5 times a day or doesn't fast during Ramadan is not a Muslim. Some like to call themselves 'secular', as they believe in the teachings and existence of a God, but don't practice them. Some simply like the associated morality (I know a few who converted simply because they hated alcohol/pork), but don't care much for the rituals.
Most of them go from being "secular" to having stronger faith or an atheist who claims to be culturally Muslim (e.g. he will fast during Ramadan, pray, but not believe in any God). I don't see how you could categorize people as hard or soft Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Satanists, etc.
Post by: Micro102 on November 20, 2012, 02:48:16 am
Post by: inteuniso on November 20, 2012, 02:56:23 am
Post by: Leafsnail on November 20, 2012, 04:50:55 am
Post by: Owlbread on November 20, 2012, 08:43:26 am
Post by: Starver on November 20, 2012, 08:54:30 am
A creator of the universe/deity/whatever could exist. He could also not exist. Why then would I automatically assume that he does exist, and not only that, he is the god of the bible or qu'ran or torah or guru granth sahib? Why not something else entirely?The classic counter-argument is that the universe exits, that everything that exists had a cause, so there must be a cause and (in the opinion of one subscribing to this POV) that cause is a divine creator (who might be assumed, when the positor of this concept is asked, to be through His/Her/Its divinity not in themselves requiring a cause). And thus why then would one automatically assume that he does not exist?
Occam's Razor held in the other hand, as it were.
Personally, I find the greatest rationalisation of the universal model to be through the universe as a whole (including its width in time) to be a static construct outside of time. Cause and effect are merely the way that us carrot-shaped creatures[1] view the arrow of time at play.
Not that I can justify that, it just answers my aesthetic (rather than 'spiritual') needs more than a Creator does, and gives a nice (higher-dimensional) model of the universe. But I've explained that one before in other threads, and you don't need it here.
[1] Look at us lengthways (in the time dimension) and we start off small and get bigger. If you make a cross-section, you'll find a (very cross?) 3D human as the face of each now separated segment. ;)
Post by: Starver on November 20, 2012, 09:08:45 am
Precisely. It's why, for example, a lot of agnostics hate getting called atheists. They are, but they're so used to atheism being associated with the strong atheist subset that they assume that's what is being implied.
Personally, I have the reaction that I'm so fed up of people assuming that it's purely the 'strong' or 'explicit' atheist viewpoint that counts that I tell them repeatedly that they're wrong! I'm sure it gets boring.
Now ask me my opinion about the common usage of the word "decimate". ;)
Post by: Starver on November 20, 2012, 09:10:25 am
I'm ok with categorizing people in smaller boxes, but only if the borders between those boxes are clear cut. An agnostic is not a 'weak atheist', they're people who stand on the fence, actually avoiding leaning one way or another.
Again wrong. (See above.) ((If not already covered in the interim. If it has been again, please ignore me while I'm being boring about it.))
Post by: Owlbread on November 20, 2012, 09:33:28 am
(Assuming this hasn't been covered already.)A creator of the universe/deity/whatever could exist. He could also not exist. Why then would I automatically assume that he does exist, and not only that, he is the god of the bible or qu'ran or torah or guru granth sahib? Why not something else entirely?The classic counter-argument is that the universe exits, that everything that exists had a cause, so there must be a cause and (in the opinion of one subscribing to this POV) that cause is a divine creator (who might be assumed, when the positor of this concept is asked, to be through His/Her/Its divinity not in themselves requiring a cause). And thus why then would one automatically assume that he does not exist?
Yes, I am familiar with that god awful kalam argument. I have yet to see any reasonable proposition for why there has to be an original cause and that original "cause" is a god.
Post by: Frumple on November 20, 2012, 09:43:40 am
And of course, the immediate response is if the divine spontaneously generated or whatev' (actually, the divine's generally considered to be atemporal or something, and thus always existent; the details vary by argument), why couldn't the universe? Then you tend to roll toward either the watch argument or something rooted in psychology; better a god than nothing, because that makes us special or summat like that.
Post by: Cthulhu on November 20, 2012, 01:24:23 pm
I had a duuuude moment last night. What if the universe is God's brain? As in, everything in the universe is the equivalent of neurons, the movements and actions of the objects making up the universe correspond at the highest level to God's thoughts. Is that Spinozism?
Post by: Starver on November 20, 2012, 01:49:44 pm
(Like LastTuesdayism[1], but we are all the fake old-earth detail being put into the young-earth's apparent 'history', in preparation for everything actually being created in that mould Next Tuesday...)
[1] For some it's LastThursdayism, or something else along those lines, but they're HERETICS! BURN THEM!! BUUUUURN THEMMMMM!!!
Post by: Owlbread on November 20, 2012, 02:05:02 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on November 20, 2012, 02:07:51 pm
Post by: Frumple on November 20, 2012, 02:14:46 pm
I had a duuuude moment last night. What if the universe is God's brain? As in, everything in the universe is the equivalent of neurons, the movements and actions of the objects making up the universe correspond at the highest level to God's thoughts. Is that Spinozism?Nah... kinda' close to it, but not quite. With the caveat that it's kinda' muddled in my head and I may be conflating or confusing 'im with someone else, what I remember of Spinoza is that God == Nature, plus a bit. Existence is kinda' like the flesh and body of God, and then there's some bits outside existence (and blazes if I remember the specifics of what th'dude said on that bit) that comprises the rest of the divine entity. The bits outside are arguably the higher aspect of the divine, but physical reality is still entirely intrinsic to the makeup of Spinoza's God.
The God == Reality, full stop, thing, is actually a bit more prevalent a message (If hilariously confuddled by violent language abuse) from some of the bigger name medieval theologians (though shoot me down to name any of the buggers. I've got a medieval philosophy book buried somewhere about the size of my head that's got the names and some representative texts in it). Basic message there was that God == Most Fundamental Good == Brute Existence (which prefaces all good things, and is most fundamental to them.) (== Fundamental Particles, natch.). They were actually hardcore materialists, which is something of a tremendously amusing thing, from a certain point of view.
Does anyone else get a bit irritated with all the philosophical jargon like "NextTuesdayism" and "True Scotsman" and all that stuff? A lack of clarity of terminology and dryness of sentence is making the philosophical discussion quite impenetrable.It's technical language (well, those in particular aren't, but similar things, yes.) that saves a tremendous amount of time once you're familiar with it. One of the problems with asking for clarity of terminology when you're dealing with philosophy is that if you're not referring to something like "Next Tuesdayism", it takes multiple paragraphs of text to describe what's essentially a basic stock argument in the field. Jargon -- technical language and short-hand stuff like the common fallacy names et al -- saves a lot of paper space when you're dealing with folks that are already aware of what it's referring to. Mind you, it's not exactly the most appropriate thing for conversation with those less familiar with the lingo, but that's what wikipedia links are for :P
E:It's worth noting that the problem is arguably even worse for theology, because its established language has a somewhat nasty habit of co-opting common use terms to mean something utterly unconnected from said common use. There's some interesting written pieces on how religious language does its thing, actually. Philosophers tend to brain each other when they try to pull shit like that :P
Post by: Owlbread on November 20, 2012, 03:08:10 pm
Does anyone else get a bit irritated with all the philosophical jargon like "NextTuesdayism" and "True Scotsman" and all that stuff? A lack of clarity of terminology and dryness of sentence is making the philosophical discussion quite impenetrable.It's technical language (well, those in particular aren't, but similar things, yes.) that saves a tremendous amount of time once you're familiar with it. One of the problems with asking for clarity of terminology when you're dealing with philosophy is that if you're not referring to something like "Next Tuesdayism", it takes multiple paragraphs of text to describe what's essentially a basic stock argument in the field. Jargon -- technical language and short-hand stuff like the common fallacy names et al -- saves a lot of paper space when you're dealing with folks that are already aware of what it's referring to. Mind you, it's not exactly the most appropriate thing for conversation with those less familiar with the lingo, but that's what wikipedia links are for :P
E:It's worth noting that the problem is arguably even worse for theology, because its established language has a somewhat nasty habit of co-opting common use terms to mean something utterly unconnected from said common use. There's some interesting written pieces on how religious language does its thing, actually. Philosophers tend to brain each other when they try to pull shit like that :P
I think several paragraphs is a bit of an exaggeration. When people use that dreadful expression "ad hominem" for an attack on someone in an argument, rather than saying "Stop using ad homs" say "Stop attacking him and attack his argument". It's longer, but you make yourself clearer and more expressive. You think more deeply. Don't be lazy, because then the understanding of a particular field is limited to those with knowledge of its jargon, rendering it quite inaccessible. Furthermore, people who use jargon can often get mixed up between meanings, and time can be wasted when people start disputing whether your argument is, for example, a particular fallacy or if you have used the wrong term - what matters is the argument is fallacious. You may want to see why it is fallacious in which case that matters, but you could easily just look at the argument plainly without jargon and see where the person has gone wrong, and state clearly where they've gone wrong, don't just name the "type" of mistake they've made.
Jargon does save time, but some people become overly-enthusiastic about it and it can make your writing really dry and inexpressive. It becomes a chore to read. Eventually too, you may begin to think in jargon phrases, or as George Orwell put it, they will think for you. He made a simple rule you can follow:
"Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 20, 2012, 09:34:01 pm
Post by: Grek on November 20, 2012, 10:33:54 pm
The universe is made of atoms. Atoms are particles so small that their diameters are between 60 and 600 trillionths of a meter, depending on the specific atom. Atoms made up of even smaller parts which do not behave like everyday sized solid objects do. Instead of only being at one place at a single time, these atom parts are spread out like a fog across multiple locations inside the atom. This lets them behave as if they were a wave in some cases, but as if they were solid in other cases. In truth, they are neither a wave nor a solid object. They follow their own rules which take a lot of math to describe and only ever approximate a wave or a solid. Despite this fact, atoms are so tiny and similiar enough to solids that we can treat them as if they were just solids when dealing with things on an everyday scale.
Post by: Eagle_eye on November 20, 2012, 11:10:50 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 20, 2012, 11:19:41 pm
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Gods, technically. The evidence doesn't support the existence of a single divinity (depending on how you define that divinity, of course).
And I believe, because the evidence leads me to believe. It is not guaranteed - I only work with the knowledge I have - so an agnostic theist, I suppose? I'll run through it again, though I've done so on the board before.
My beliefs are a bit weird, but the basic logic is as follows: We know universes are capable of creating additional less complex universes through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the universe we know about that has created sub-universes has created many.
It stands to reason, then, that most Universes are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the universes creation.
Hypothetically, it is possible to create far more advanced universes than we have so far. It is theoretically possible for us to create universes with inhabitants that can create their own universes, given time and resources.
Thus, it stands to reason that many universes would be capable of having more complex universes above them and more simple universes below them.
By the odds, we know we do not dwell at the bottom. The next most common location would seem to place is in the middle - as a constructed universe with one or more creators, of sufficient complexity to create our own sub-universes.
As such, I believe in the existence of gods, because it seems like the most likely outcome. It is by no means guaranteed, though, and I'm obviously working off limited information, but it may be the best we can do.
Post by: Grek on November 21, 2012, 12:22:01 am
trillionths can be simplified. particles can be simplified. diameters can be simplified. approximate can be simplified. And yours isn't an accurate description of physics either. It's a simplification. That's the point.
It's as accurate as you're going to get from a person who isn't a particle physicist in under an hour with no research. And while those things can be simplified, they don't need to be. The point is to get the most accuracy you can get without using undefined jargon that your readers probably don't understand.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, I really think that GlyphGryph would get a kick out of this story:
The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5389450/1/The_Finale_of_the_Ultimate_Meta_Mega_Crossover).
Post by: Starver on November 21, 2012, 07:56:25 am
Does anyone else get a bit irritated with all the philosophical jargon like "NextTuesdayism" and "True Scotsman" and all that stuff? A lack of clarity of terminology and dryness of sentence is making the philosophical discussion quite impenetrable.
Well, as said further down, once you know the name it's a handy shortcut for referencing a concept. Recognising that it might not be obvious[1], I then actually explained it, so not sure what the complaint is about in this instance.
The big problem is when you have differing opinions of what terms like Atheism actually mean (witness further up the thread), whether someone understands "Ad Hom" at all, even when it's spelt out and are (as I recently put it) "holding Occam's Razor in the other hand". Then you have incidents of people thinking there's agreement where there isn't, disagreement where it actually is agreed, and confusion as someone wonders why it's been suggested they might try to wear a kilt.
I think I'm more at fault for over-explaining things, but YMMV.
Plus, it is nothing at all like that.I was pointing out the similarities (we all exist as a mental simulation), rather than saying it was actually equivalent[2]. After I wrote it I regretted writing that part so pithily that it might be misinterpreted as it has been. Don't mind me, though.
[1] It's not as widely talked about as LastTuesday/Thursday/Whateverdayism (so much so that I'd refute it as being "Jargon", because I've not even seen it used at all in those discussions that feature the IPU and FSM quite regularly, never mind (slightly) more serious discussions), although anyone who knows about this other probably should have understood the one I gave above. As such, I treated you all as idiots by explaining it, I know.
[2] There's no promise of any extra-neural existence for us, at all, and I assume you mean we're actual the substrate of the brain/mind rather than the abstractions 'run upon' it. (i.e. the stones in A Bunch Of Rocks (http://xkcd.com/505), not the world(s!)that they end up representing).
Post by: Owlbread on November 21, 2012, 11:40:06 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Gods, technically. The evidence doesn't support the existence of a single divinity (depending on how you define that divinity, of course).
And I believe, because the evidence leads me to believe. It is not guaranteed - I only work with the knowledge I have - so an agnostic theist, I suppose? I'll run through it again, though I've done so on the board before.
My beliefs are a bit weird, but the basic logic is as follows: We know universes are capable of creating additional less complex universes through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the universe we know about that has created sub-universes has created many.
It stands to reason, then, that most Universes are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the universes creation.
Hypothetically, it is possible to create far more advanced universes than we have so far. It is theoretically possible for us to create universes with inhabitants that can create their own universes, given time and resources.
Thus, it stands to reason that many universes would be capable of having more complex universes above them and more simple universes below them.
By the odds, we know we do not dwell at the bottom. The next most common location would seem to place is in the middle - as a constructed universe with one or more creators, of sufficient complexity to create our own sub-universes.
As such, I believe in the existence of gods, because it seems like the most likely outcome. It is by no means guaranteed, though, and I'm obviously working off limited information, but it may be the best we can do.
Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.
Post by: Starver on November 21, 2012, 12:12:32 pm
(I'm not even sure which universe would have had the wormhole device and which has the particle accelerator... Or whatever it might have been that differentiated which of us got to internally gestate the baby universe, before birthing it into the metaverse. Whichever one it was, it would have been criticised by one set of readers or another. I was thinking of referencing seahorse reproduction to trip up both camps.)
But, basically, we (humanity, or our galaxy or something) were the gonads of our universe. Whatever gender they might be. I liked the idea that we weren't even the thinking bit of the Universe Organism.
Oh yeah, and babies aren't (certainly by the time they grow up) simpler than their parents, on the whole, and given we know how the tree of life has gone arguably they're (on average) a tiny bit more complex than either of their parents. And it's also not required in this sequence of events that there's a conscious creation by those responsible. It just so happens that in my tale we worked out what was happening, after we had already gotten most of the way down the path, and thus found out that our position in the scheme of things was basically as 'dumb biology', at the meta-scale. And that only because I thought it would make a better story for the protagonists to give the reader the necessary exposition than hiding the events behind "that's odd, the accelerator's gone heywire... and now there's a region of strangely different space residing in the stellar neighbourhood" or whatever, and making a meta-story for the reader's eyes only. But it could have gone a lot of different ways had I persevered.
This does not totally relate to GG's philosophy, I know. I mention it only because of some of the parallels in the background theory of both scenarios.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 21, 2012, 08:06:24 pm
Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.two hundred years from now, someone like toady is born. he has access to more computational power in one of his shoes that the whole world has today, and he rents a small uninhabited island in the pacific to build this supercomputer supercomplex to run this neat simulation he's thinkking of...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 11:26:28 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.Please define the following words:
-Religious
-Person
-Believe
-their chosen God
Also,
In,tell, why, they,...
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2012, 12:34:46 pm
The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 12:40:10 pm
It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.
The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.
For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else. What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 12:45:50 pm
It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.
The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.
For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else. What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.
So are you trying to find a way of being able to explain your belief in virgin birth by trying to answer my question? That's fine, but I'd rather you just told us why. I mean, we can already have virgin birth can't we? In so far as they'd still be inseminated but you know.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on November 22, 2012, 12:49:12 pm
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Gods, technically. The evidence doesn't support the existence of a single divinity (depending on how you define that divinity, of course).
And I believe, because the evidence leads me to believe. It is not guaranteed - I only work with the knowledge I have - so an agnostic theist, I suppose? I'll run through it again, though I've done so on the board before.
My beliefs are a bit weird, but the basic logic is as follows: We know universes are capable of creating additional less complex universes through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the universe we know about that has created sub-universes has created many.
It stands to reason, then, that most Universes are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the universes creation.
Hypothetically, it is possible to create far more advanced universes than we have so far. It is theoretically possible for us to create universes with inhabitants that can create their own universes, given time and resources.
Thus, it stands to reason that many universes would be capable of having more complex universes above them and more simple universes below them.
By the odds, we know we do not dwell at the bottom. The next most common location would seem to place is in the middle - as a constructed universe with one or more creators, of sufficient complexity to create our own sub-universes.
As such, I believe in the existence of gods, because it seems like the most likely outcome. It is by no means guaranteed, though, and I'm obviously working off limited information, but it may be the best we can do.
Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.
Well, we can create a universe by simulating it on a computer. An example that would actually be recognizable as an universe is Conway's Game of Life.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 01:02:36 pm
See, this was what I was trying to avoid by asking those questions.It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.
The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.
For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else. What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.
So are you trying to find a way of being able to explain your belief in virgin birth by trying to answer my question? That's fine, but I'd rather you just told us why. I mean, we can already have virgin birth can't we? In so far as they'd still be inseminated but you know.
The dogma of the virgin birth has nothing to do with the biological explanation of conception and all that stuff. It isn't even clearly stated in the Bible. It's just a way of reinforcing the idea that Jezus was no mere human.
The dogma of the immaculate conception is related. It states that Maria had no part in original sin, it doesn't claim anything about the conception and such.
((Even wikipedia gets these right, mostly))
Post by: Leafsnail on November 22, 2012, 01:04:15 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 01:05:22 pm
It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.
But I'd like to see what the other side thinks.
Post by: Fenrir on November 22, 2012, 01:08:18 pm
What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.Considering the fact that, no matter what words you choose to shuffle around, it doesn’t change what you actually believe, so there isn’t a set of definitions that you could use that would let you actually communicate to us that you believe in virgin births without suffering the laughter of biologists. The best you could do is obfuscate what you are saying and defeat the purpose of telling us in the first place.
For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.He isn’t asking about the particulars of your belief. He isn’t asking about the virgin birth or whether your god likes pancakes for breakfast. He even used the words “your chosen god” which permits anything from Tyr to Yahweh.
It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.If the terms used are common words in the English language, and there has been no tampering done, and there is no sign of any rogue connotations, or any other lingual duplicity, it’s probably best he just answered the question.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 01:26:36 pm
Reading comprehension 101. I said I believed in the Dogma of the virgin birth. I did not say I that I believe in the possibility of a virgin birth. As said before, the dogma of the virgin birth has nothing to do with the biological implications and mechanics of pregnancy.*What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.Considering the fact that, no matter what words you choose to shuffle around, it doesn’t change what you actually believe, so there isn’t a set of definitions that you could use that would let you actually communicate to us that you believe in virgin births without suffering the laughter of biologists. The best you could do is obfuscate what you are saying and defeat the purpose of telling us in the first place.
*Except the fact that they're both talking about the same subject of course
Say, I believe in God, but I don't believe we should burn the gays or whatever crazyness the fundamentalists are up to today.For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.He isn’t asking about the particulars of your belief. He isn’t asking about the virgin birth or whether your god likes pancakes for breakfast. He even used the words “your chosen god” which permits anything from Tyr to Yahweh.
For the fundamentalists I'm a heretic, for others I might be a believer, yet we're talking about the same holy book, and the same God.
It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.If the terms used are common words in the English language, and there has been no tampering done, and there is no sign of any rogue connotations, or any other lingual duplicity, it’s probably best he just answered the question.
They are common used words in the English language, but you often see them having vastly different implications depending. Let's use the wikipedia defenitions then.
Quote
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
Quote
In Christianity, God is the eternal being that created and preserves the world. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (i.e. wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (i.e. involved in the world).Under these sets of definitions, you could say my answer would be yes. (Probably).
However, just in order to screw with definitions a bit more:
I believe the Biblical story about the creation of Earth to be true
I don't believe the creationists are right
I believe the principle of evolution to be true (with the appropriate margin of error for scientific theories)
.....
The whole thing essentially boils down to the definition of truth, and the different possible interpretations of a single story. (There are a lot, believe me).
The problem we have is that many people seem to think that religion and myths are some kind of protoscience, that they are succesive phases in a search for knowledge, and that they are mutually exclusive. None of this is true.
Post by: Siquo on November 22, 2012, 01:36:37 pm
None of this is true.No. But it can be thought to be true (and, IMNSHO, wrong) in two ways that I vehemently oppose:
- Religious people thinking that their beliefs supercede scientific data in some way
- Scientism, or the belief that "what science says" (or their interpretation of it) is somehow "true"
The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.
Post by: Hiiri on November 22, 2012, 01:58:36 pm
No. But it can be thought to be true (and, IMNSHO, wrong) in two ways that I vehemently oppose:
- Religious people thinking that their beliefs supercede scientific data in some way
- Scientism, or the belief that "what science says" (or their interpretation of it) is somehow "true"
The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.
Damn! They're on to us! Help us, oh holy Dawkins! Reveal the truth to us, so we can enlighten these infidels! Bring forth the holy scripture "God delusion"!
You know, science is right because a scientist says it's right. Sheesh, it's really simple concept.
Atheism 101:
Science gives us neat stuff, like cars and phones, therefore science is always right.
Scientists do science, therefore scientists are always right.
Scientists say THERE ABSOLUTELY IS NO GOD AND NEVER WILL BE! Therefore God does not exist.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:02:57 pm
Yes I know you're being sarcastic about a stereotypic view of atheists. It doesn't mean you are allowed to be wrong.
Post by: Owlbread on November 22, 2012, 02:10:25 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:16:27 pm
Quote
The problem we have is that many people seem to think that religion and myths are some kind of protoscience, that science and religion are succesive phases in a search for knowledge, and that they are mutually exclusive. None of this is true.
In order to make it even more clear.
Scientists and Religions are not shooting for the same goal.
Post by: Hiiri on November 22, 2012, 02:18:17 pm
((actually, a significant part of the scientific community is religous. Example: George LeMaitre, a catholic priest who first proposed the Big bang theory.))
Yes I know you're being sarcastic about a stereotypic view of atheists. It doesn't mean you are allowed to be wrong.
And most famous of them all; Isaac Newton. Sure, being religious doesn't make a person stupid, but it does make them (probably) wrong on one subject.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 22, 2012, 02:18:48 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 02:33:00 pm
I've little (read: almost none) respect for religions that aren't logically consistent, but those that are tend to be great in my book. So if you can analyze a religion to hell and back and not come up with contradictions, thumbs up! I'll consider it a rather valid thing to base your life philosophy on. But if you can find contradictions, and lots of them.... :|With sufficient analysis you can find contradictions everywhere. Most religions don't have contradictions though, they have things that might seem contradictory, and their holy books might contain contradictory things, but it's the intrepretation that makes a religion. As such, as new intrepretations are formed and old ones are rejected, a religion grows and modifies itself. A religion is not a static thing, nor is it something definable, it's more personal.
((I seem I have to lost my point somewhere. Comes down to see what works for you, and watch out for those who insist on using a single intrepretation of a text))
Post by: Leafsnail on November 22, 2012, 04:19:53 pm
The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.Yeah we all know you're a contrarian, good for you.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 22, 2012, 04:24:45 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 22, 2012, 04:31:22 pm
Has anyone ever popped the question about all the other fucking life in the universe which isn't as well of as us if we're supposedly god's chosen? I look forward to seeing how we deal with being inadequate next to another species, if only for that.They can invent their own gods for all I like. The chance that we ever hear about, let alone ever see alien beings.
If you're allowed to selectively "interpret" things you can't really ever be wrong or contradictory (I maintain that homophobic readings of the Bible, or most other readings even, are just as valid as non-homophobic ones for instance). Not that it really matters considering the fundamental problem is lack of any actual basis, but hey.That's the way a religion works, as well as anything else. You can write a perfectly innocent text, or something else, and without enough inventiveness everyone can turn it to their purpose.
What's nice to know is that the Churchfathers actually wrote rules on how to interpret the Bible, on which the homophobic readings often fail to comply*. After all, Christianity =/= Bible, but is only a collection of intrepretations of said story.
*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 22, 2012, 04:33:13 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 22, 2012, 04:46:33 pm
*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)This is vague enough that it could support any interpretation really. You could say that homophobic interpretations support the virtue of Chastity, and promotes belief in and hope for a God who designed us to love to opposite gender.
Post by: Siquo on November 23, 2012, 03:32:06 am
I've little (read: almost none) respect for religions that aren't logically consistent, but those that are tend to be great in my book. So if you can analyze a religion to hell and back and not come up with contradictions, thumbs up! I'll consider it a rather valid thing to base your life philosophy on. But if you can find contradictions, and lots of them.... :|I love religions based on (apparent) contradictions. Especially Apophatic theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) is awesome. Buddhism embraces quite a few, as well.
Post by: miauw62 on November 23, 2012, 10:59:10 am
Does the cross have a symbolic meaning or not?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 23, 2012, 11:25:04 am
I have one question about Christianity:Of course it has, everything can have/ has a symbolical meaning, depending on the context.
Does the cross have a symbolic meaning or not?
It has a lot of symbolic meanings. First of all, it's a symbol for Christianity. It all depends on which faction you speak too though. Jehovah's witness don't recognize it. Wikipedia could have told you the same.
It also means you can write something that's just straight-up incorrect and other people can twist it into a form that no longer contradicts itself or the observable world. But again, that doesn't really matter when you consider the complete lack of basis. A holy book that had absolutely no internal contradictions would still fall flat at that point without actual evidence.I believe we had these arguments already, and that we came out that there was a complete lack of basis for anything at all. Also, what exactly does the book need to prove.*Should read De Doctrine Christiana for that. (Basis is that every reader should keep the 7 virtues in mind, and that each intrepretation should lead to an increase in Belief, love and hope. Even if it means ignoring the literal for the allegorical meaning, for example)This is vague enough that it could support any interpretation really. You could say that homophobic interpretations support the virtue of Chastity, and promotes belief in and hope for a God who designed us to love to opposite gender.
Many points can be made about the homophobic/fundamentalists readings off the Bible, or any religious book. First of all, they are not historically supported. All those intrepretations came up in the 19the century, and clash with previous intrepretations, as well as with the texts themselves. What seems to be the problem with your intrepretations is that you insist in grouping all of Christianity together, what of course cause problems.
Besides, It's just as easy to abuse a scientific or other text as it is to abuse something else. If we'd follow your logic through, in that every intrepretation is equally valid, we'd have to accept social darwinism and all those other things.
Besides, about the vagueness. I gave a small synopsis out of an entire literary work. There have been hundreds of books written about the Bible. Same for other religions. (The Jews even add some intrepretations to their scriptures)
Post by: brainfreez on November 23, 2012, 12:28:12 pm
So if your religion is right the prove that with real proof not just "the god exists , if you won't believe to it then you will go to hell"
I guess most people are religious just because they are afraid to go to hell after death (you can really notice it when someone says that the end of the world is near and everyone instantly turn into christians (or whatever religion) and start praying god because they are afraid to go to hell)
Also , if you still believe to religion , grow up , open your mind and try to explain why things happen not just say that "Everything was created by god". It seems that people explain things that they cannot explain by saying that a god did it , its just so dumb ...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 23, 2012, 12:37:08 pm
"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )I don't want to convert/convince you, so why should I want to prove my religion?
Thanks for playing the strawmen atheist btw. Let me guess, American?
Post by: kaijyuu on November 23, 2012, 12:42:49 pm
"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.
So, if someone's preaching to you, it's their job to prove to you their religion is correct.
And if you're trying to convince someone their religion is wrong, it's your job to prove to them.
Your strawman atheist douchebag goes up to a religious person unprovoked, insults them, and then says "I don't have to prove anything; that's your job!" despite being the one making assertions. Sorta like you just did :P
Post by: Graknorke on November 23, 2012, 12:43:42 pm
Can someone even be their own strawman? Does it work that way?"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )I don't want to convert/convince you, so why should I want to prove my religion?
Thanks for playing the strawmen atheist btw. Let me guess, American?
Anyway, for Christians, I'm pretty sure the Bible says that it is every Christian's duty to convert as many people as possible to save them from an infinite time of God's wrath.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 23, 2012, 12:44:34 pm
Can someone even be their own strawman? Does it work that way?It's a stereotype that's often used as a strawman, is what he's saying.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 23, 2012, 12:52:05 pm
That's one intrepretation. (Besides, Aggresive conversion doesn't work). The thing I'm doing can be seen as conversion, though passive. Countering unjust accusitions and such.Can someone even be their own strawman? Does it work that way?"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )I don't want to convert/convince you, so why should I want to prove my religion?
Thanks for playing the strawmen atheist btw. Let me guess, American?
Anyway, for Christians anyway, I'm pretty sure the Bible says that it is every Christian's duty to convert as many people as possible to save them from an infinite time of God's wrath.
Besides, if a person lives his life according to the ideals of Christianity(please don't take this too litteral), but don't calls himselfs as such, doesn't believe in God, or hasn't even heard of him, would he get into heaven? (If we assume that said thing exist as a real thing)
Adding on to that, the idea of doing good to avoid getting into Hell is not supported by Christianity. (Again, Hell and heaven are symbolics for idealisms for society. Which is why the Lord's prayers says: "They Kingdom come, they will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven". It's an symbol for a certain state of mind.)
Post by: Starver on November 23, 2012, 01:23:48 pm
While I'm definitely not as sceptical about the authority of Wikipedia as many people, I wouldn't use that as a guide in this issue. (True, I think that the proof of burden is on those making the extraordinary claims. Of course, some people think that the extraordinary claim is that there is no God. And sometimes, closely tied, the claim that it's a different God.)
Pascallian Wagerers are damned both ways, in my opinion, while those are true to their doubts/non-belief and lead decent lives without putting themselves out on seemingly redundant religious doctrine of any particular shape or colour should find themselves without too much to fear under either circumstance. (But who knows if God/Zeus/Gilgamesh/Whoever actually subscribes to that principle themselves?) Obviously the truly (or truly-enough) religious observers are going to get personal fulfilment in life and a shot at the end-game reward.
I wouldn't presume to say that one cannot have the "hobby"[1] of worshipping Jehovah, or whatever. If it feels good it probably does you good, regardless of whether it books you tickets to the nicer vacation destination. (Plus, if heartfelt, probably won't cause too many problems when Odin finally casts his eye upon you.) But I agree that letting it get in the way of dealing with the world in a way that benefits everyone would be a hard cross (or large effigy of any other kind) to bear. This applies to hard-line atheism, too. Don't be annoying about it to those that haven't got the 'right' idea (apart from anythging else, they might be right, and that'll mean a black mark in your books).
[1] Not actually the right word, but here used as a handy shortcut for something that takes time and effort to do, regardless of the progression of the rest of your life. If you don't have anything else to do then there's something wrong, assuming you're not an actual prophet or something with an even higher pay-grade.
Post by: Glowcat on November 23, 2012, 04:49:17 pm
Besides, It's just as easy to abuse a scientific or other text as it is to abuse something else. If we'd follow your logic through, in that every intrepretation is equally valid, we'd have to accept social darwinism and all those other things.
Am I the only one who doesn't see what he's talking about here? I was pretty sure Leafsnail's point was that the Judeo-Christian religion was full of contradictions and too open to interpretation to mean anything. Not sure how he got from that to scientific papers and accepting social darwinism, which isn't even science so much as a social movement born out of terribad logic.
"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.
You really want to go over this again?
I'm pretty sure that even if somebody did something as outrageous as coming up to a random theist and telling them their religion is bunk, getting them to provide their belief system and poking holes in that to show the theist the unsoundness of their position would be an effective (though rude) means of argumentation. Most of what religion does is claim things which can't be supported by data anyway. Kinda hard to build an argument when the entire issue is that the theist's position is saying "2 + 2 = Banana, therefore sex in sinful". Sorta requires the theist to lay their entire system out there to find what in particular gives them reason to believe in their deity, especially given that not all theists have the same beliefs and many simply never seriously question what they've been told their entire life until they're older or are given reason to, such as encountering strawman atheists on the street to finally make them think about it.
P.S. on subject dug up from the grave: Invisible Pink Unicorns can exist. They'll be pink when they finally turn off their invisibility, duh.
Post by: Fenrir on November 23, 2012, 05:12:33 pm
They'll be pink when they finally turn off their invisibility, duh.That’s one interpretation.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 23, 2012, 05:16:35 pm
I don't expect the book to prove anything. It's difficult to impossible to prove a theory. However, if it's telling me about how the world is meant to be then I expect evidence. An experiment, a study, an observation that implies this theory is better than the alternatives. For instance, in the example you provide of On the Origin of Species, Darwin provides verifiable examples and observations to demonstrate why his ideas help explain the world (most famously his finches). Thus while he has not by any means proved his theory correct, he has demonstrated that his theory at least fills current gaps in knowledge and is worth further investigation (said further investigation ended up uncovering a valid mechanism and revealing that his theory was broadly correct and worthwhile). These things are all absent in the Bible, which is why I say it is without basis.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 06:03:11 pm
[/quote]"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.
Of course, the atheist starts with evidence. (Absence of evidence is evidence of absence). It's not terribly strong evidence, of course, at least at the start of this conversation, but it's not the only piece that exists - when combined with the number of competing religions, he likelihood of any individual religion being correct (absent any other evidence) is fairly low... low enough that the absence of evidence provides a fairly strong initial position for the atheist. (This is assuming the atheist is arguing only in opposition to the particular religion, but works against each individually, and even holds to a lesser extent for arguments against all of them)
That the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the assertion is honestly more of an observation than a directive - the starting evidence, if you well, almost always lies in opposition to the assertion, if only because there are often multiple competing assertions, and it would be absurd to assume they are all true until proven otherwise. But with such an understanding, it's clear that the (standard) Atheist position is not truly an assertion in any meaningful way. He needs not explicitly say "all of these are wrong", simply that "there is insufficient evidence to believe in any of these claims over the others" and thus (in the absence of any evidence that at least one of the options MUST be correct) he can adopt the null position - namely, "I do not know what is right, but the starting evidence indicates that you, in particular, are wrong" in the case with each member of each religion.
The burden of proof, as it were, could easily be required of both parties, but the atheist has the benefit of starting from a stronger position, meaning that the supporter of religion must provide sufficient evidence of their own to warrant any further evidence from the atheist.
So, yes,
"It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right"
may not be a great quote. Rather:
"An atheist need not provide evidence that any given religion is wrong - reality does that for him, meaning his lack of belief is de-facto rational. A theist, however, needs to provide evidence that his particular religion is correct (if they wish to be rationally justified in that belief), since the evidence against them is inherent in the question being asked."
My religion is true - that's a might powerful claim with a great amount of evidence against it and a lot of competitors. It is not JUST a claim about your religion, it is a claim that all other religions are false.
Your religion is not true - While this makes a claim, the claim is much weaker, and thus it is the default state. It makes fewer assumptions - it requires less evidence, and starts with more. After all, it is also a claim contained ENTIRELY within the claim of the theist. While it may not have proof, it's rational to choose this option over the one that requires adopting this hypothesis a thousand times over in addition to making another.
=======
Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.
Post by: Fenrir on November 23, 2012, 06:44:12 pm
Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?
Post by: Owlbread on November 23, 2012, 06:46:47 pm
Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way is it a different universe?
We can also make universes in our heads. This sounds suspiciously like the ontological argument for the existence of God, which is quite horrible because you can will a lot of shit into existence that obviously doesn't.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 23, 2012, 06:48:31 pm
(Absence of evidence is evidence of absence)And the things you build upon that particular assertion.
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Drawing any conclusion whatsoever from no data is inherently fallacious. It's not like you can go over and check whether something beyond the empirical exists. There's an impenetrable wall between you and anything supernatural, so claiming you have any knowledge whatsoever about what exists there (or doesn't) doesn't make sense, and is definitely not rational.
Coming up with valid analogies is hard, because all of them concern empirical things, but I'll try: If you were born in a windowless room that you never left, would you assume nothing existed outside of it? All you know is what you can see, taste, touch, hear, and smell (and other senses, for you pedants out there), and what you can build a tool to sense for you. When you're barred from gaining any data on something, you can't make any assumption about it and call it logical.
I'm an agnostic, and I expect theories to be logically consistent with themselves and other assumptions we hold. As such, I don't believe most mainstream religions, because I believe empiricism and those religions often contradict that (not to mention themselves). However, if you were to tell me there's an intangible, invisible elephant next to me named Stampy that cannot be detected in any way known to man, then I feel the only rational response to the question of his existence is "I don't know." And added on to that, "it doesn't matter," as Stampy cannot do anything to affect me.
Post by: Glowcat on November 23, 2012, 07:29:22 pm
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Drawing any conclusion whatsoever from no data is inherently fallacious
Incorrect. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, just not proof of absence.
Here's an easy way to show it.
Assertion: There is a man-eating horrorterror clinging to the next ceiling you're under and it will immediately devour you.
If you walk under any ceiling and are not eaten, then my claim is false. If you're eaten then I don't have to plan a further response.
Assertion 2: There is a man-eating horrorterror clinging to the next ceiling you're under. It will devour you if you linger too long.
This claim is not as strongly disproven as the first, but if you don't see a horrorterror and wait quite a while you can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no horrorterror and I'm playing a mean prank on you. However, the time duration before herrorterror appears and eats you is nonspecific and you can never be absolutely sure that there isn't some invisible horrorterror preparing to do its horrorterror thing any second now.
Yet in both cases there is still EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Evidence lends support for a theory, it doesn't always provide absolute certainty and nobody needs absolute certainty to come to conclusions. Just try pulling those epistemological games in a court of law and see how long before everybody in the room is annoyed with you.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on November 23, 2012, 07:33:11 pm
our univese still operates upon the rules of the hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2012, 07:39:46 pm
... I've not -read- the book, but still! Cool idea.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 07:40:13 pm
If you were born in a windowless room, the absence of evidence of the truth outside IS effective evidence against any particular otherwise unjustified hypothetical. It's not full-proof evidence - you could be wrong. But the fact that there is no evidence to make one supposition stronger than another mutually contradictory supposition is, in fact, evidence against both of them. However, suppose one of those makes a prediction that it will - especially if one of those suppositions implies evidence supporting it should exist. Perhaps that the outside is full of bullets, and there is a good chance one should hit and enter your room several times in your lifetime. The alternative is that there are no bullets flying around outside threatening to enter your room. The fact that there is no evidence of the first case does not mean it's impossible, but it makes it less likely - it is evidence against it.
And you know what... I honestly don't even think you believe what you're claiming here. Let's test it, shall we? I make the claim that you are currently being poked in the back of the head by a burly Nordic man. Can you, without relying on absence of evidence, provide proof (of any strength) that this is not the case?
The fact is, most religions DO make ACTUAL predictions and expect ACTUAL results in the world as a whole - and for those religions, absence of any evidence of those results IS, in fact, evidence against them.
Let me offer a simple hypothetical:
You and a friend are in a room with a hundred near identical boxes. You know there is at most one red ball in one of the boxes, and have no additional information... except that your friend has no more information than you do.
Your friend points to one of the boxes and says "I believe the ball is in that box."
The lack of any evidence for this claim, combined with the number of possibilities where this is NOT true (potentially infinite, since there is no guarantee of a red ball, but at least 99) versus the number of possibilities that he is correct (1) means that said belief is, quite simply, wrong.
Note that this does not mean there is not, in fact, a red ball in the box. Under ideal circumstances, there is a 1% chance of this being the case. But the belief is still wrong, because there is no rational reason to belief that 1/100 chance over any of the others.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 07:43:07 pm
our univese still operates upon the rules of the hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?
I suspect we're getting into a semantic argument here, but yes, Askot's response holds. If we decide to define "Universe" in a different way, my approach still holds - it just means it's definitions shift appropriately. In this case, we could say we are in a created simulation, rather than a universe, if you prefer.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 23, 2012, 08:07:02 pm
Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.
Post by: Micro102 on November 23, 2012, 08:21:30 pm
And it would be great if both sides didn't try to push their beleifs on others. The thing is, the government has been so congested with overly religious people that it has created a ton of discrimination against atheists. For example, in some states, you have to believe in god to run for office. It's sickening."It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.
So, if someone's preaching to you, it's their job to prove to you their religion is correct.
And if you're trying to convince someone their religion is wrong, it's your job to prove to them.
Your strawman atheist douchebag goes up to a religious person unprovoked, insults them, and then says "I don't have to prove anything; that's your job!" despite being the one making assertions. Sorta like you just did :P
I also believe that part of the legeslative branch of government is reserved for Catholic priests. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: Fenrir on November 23, 2012, 08:31:12 pm
All Askot’s response means is that, when you talk about “universes”, you’re talking about layers of abstraction over a base set of rules. It’s all the same set of rules operating on the same set of stuff.our univese still operates upon the rules of the hypothetical higher universe, and our universe's creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of it is of the higher universe, so in what way are they different universes?Every time you create a world in dwarf fortress, or Conways Game of Life, or start up a game of Noctis, you are creating a Universe.The programs mentioned still operate upon the rules of the current universe, and their creation was the inexorable product of those same rules, and the substance of them is of this universe, so in what way are they different universes?
I suspect we're getting into a semantic argument here, but yes, Askot's response holds.
If we decide to define "Universe" in a different way, my approach still holds - it just means it's definitions shift appropriately. In this case, we could say we are in a created simulation, rather than a universe, if you prefer.Oh no it doesn’t.
Your argument depends upon calling arbitrary phenomena “universes”. If we call them simulations...
Quote
We know [simulations] are capable of creating additional less complex [simulations] through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the [simulations] we know about that has created sub-[simulations] has created many.
It stands to reason, then, that most [simulations] are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the [simulation]’s creation.
...then you would have to first assume that this is a simulation.
Post by: Glowcat on November 23, 2012, 08:42:30 pm
I don't have time for a proper reply right now, so I'll just ask that you make sure you're not doing something:
Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.
They only "don't work" if you presume the existence of things outside our reality... and deductive logic doesn't work there either. It's just an unfalsifiable assertion which leads us nowhere. That's not any kind of actual argument.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 08:50:56 pm
I don't have time for a proper reply right now, so I'll just ask that you make sure you're not doing something:
Make sure you're not trying to build an inductive argument here. I assure you any evidence you preset to support it will be empirical, which won't work concerning questions about things outside our little plane of existence.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about religions here. Obviously none of this applies to unknown clockmakers that have no interaction with our universe at all, but there aren't really any religions based around those guys - I mean, what would that sort of religion be about? It makes sense.
But Religions? The type real people actually believe in?
They very much concern themselves with questions relevant to our little plane of existence, and those bits (core bits for pretty much every religion on the planet) are perfectly in keeping with this argument.
Regardless, everything in my argument holds even for an unknowable outside force - because my argument isn't about truth (which is inherently unknowable in the situation you describe) but about belief which is a completely different thing.
Whether or not the thing you believe in turns out to be true later has nothing to do with whether your belief is right or wrong, just like how lying through your teeth doesn't magically become un-lying just because something happened and it turned out to be true instead of false.
And even beyond ALL of that, once you have three people with mutually contradictory beliefs about the unknowable, with identical evidence in your favour, any one of those beliefs are irrational and generally unjustified, because it is undeniably more likely you are wrong than that you are right. This applies even for things outside our universe that we can never know about.
(And before you try to argue how the rules could be different - for example, that perhaps they could all be true at the same time - note that any such statement will render all those beliefs void since they require exclusivity as a core tenant. This is a big part of why Christianity and the other Judeo-beliefs gets hit so hard by this sort of basic understanding of how evidence works.)
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:19:48 pm
I think that's in the British parliament, and it's Anglican bishops? I don't know, I'm Canadian. But the Americans are all discriminatory against Catholics that I doubt they would have a seat just for them. They're all descendants of Protestants, don'tchaknow?And it would be great if both sides didn't try to push their beleifs on others. The thing is, the government has been so congested with overly religious people that it has created a ton of discrimination against atheists. For example, in some states, you have to believe in gos to run for office. It's sickening."It's not the job for atheists to prove that religion is wrong , it's job for theists to prove the religion is right" (quote from someone that i found on wikipedia :P )'Tis a silly quote. Burden of proof lies on whoever's making an assertion. If you claim any knowledge or belief, you have to back it up. Doesn't matter if it's "negative" or "positive" or whatever.
So, if someone's preaching to you, it's their job to prove to you their religion is correct.
And if you're trying to convince someone their religion is wrong, it's your job to prove to them.
Your strawman atheist douchebag goes up to a religious person unprovoked, insults them, and then says "I don't have to prove anything; that's your job!" despite being the one making assertions. Sorta like you just did :P
I also believe that part of the legeslative branch of government is reserved for Catholic priests. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 23, 2012, 09:26:13 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 23, 2012, 09:28:51 pm
Post by: Descan on November 23, 2012, 09:35:07 pm
Just like Muslims have Shia and Sunni, and Hindus have... I don't know what Hindus have. And...
There's a lot of denominations in a lot of religions, OKAY?
Heretic: Same religion, different denomination.
Heathen: Different religion altogether.
Post by: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:40:04 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 23, 2012, 09:41:13 pm
Yeah I know, I just fou
Yes. It is. Protestant Christianity.nd "Americans discriminate against Christianity " weird.
Just like Muslims have Shia and Sunni, and Hindus have... I don't know what Hindus have. And...
There's a lot of denominations in a lot of religions, OKAY?
Heretic: Same religion, different denomination.
Heathen: Different religion altogether.
Post by: Angle on November 23, 2012, 09:48:08 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 23, 2012, 10:59:56 pm
If we decide to define "Universe" in a different way, my approach still holds - it just means it's definitions shift appropriately. In this case, we could say we are in a created simulation, rather than a universe, if you prefer.Oh no it doesn’t.
Your argument depends upon calling arbitrary phenomena “universes”. If we call them simulations...QuoteWe know [simulations] are capable of creating additional less complex [simulations] through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the [simulations] we know about that has created sub-[simulations] has created many.
It stands to reason, then, that most [simulations] are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the [simulation]’s creation.
...then you would have to first assume that this is a simulation.
I'm... really not sure what you're point is here. Whether you call them artificial universes or simulations doesn't matter - we're more likely to be in one of those whatever-you-call-its than the products of a natural universe (though obviously we would at some point be contained within a natural universe, unless it's turtles all the way down). That was the whole point of what I said. Whether you want to consider the entirety of all our physical laws, space, time, energy and every one of the products thereof of a "universe" or not is still just semantics and up to you. But that's what I'm talking about - the rules of our reality that govern our reality, and the "stuff" that results from them. That's what most people think of as a universe, in my understanding. Something like Conway's Game of Life has it's own all of those things quite distinct from our own in this universe/simulation.
All Askot’s response means is that, when you talk about “universes”, you’re talking about layers of abstraction over a base set of rules. It’s all the same set of rules operating on the same set of stuff.I'm sorry... what? I'm really not following here. You're arguing the same rules that govern the interaction of the primary components in the Game of Life are the same rules that govern the primary components here? Or that our rules somehow govern them? Because I'm not seeing how that works.
Post by: Fenrir on November 23, 2012, 11:30:36 pm
Post by: Muz on November 23, 2012, 11:42:17 pm
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
Because there's nothing disproving it.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
The only time when followed my religious principles strictly, rather than relying on someone else's interpretations, they went from a single city state to an empire in 29 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate). Whether that's a consequence of a lot of collective prayer or principles applied or just plain hard work and motivation, it works for me.
Post by: Grek on November 23, 2012, 11:47:31 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 01:02:50 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
Because there's nothing disproving it.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
The only time when followed my religious principles strictly, rather than relying on someone else's interpretations, they went from a single city state to an empire in 29 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate). Whether that's a consequence of a lot of collective prayer or principles applied or just plain hard work and motivation, it works for me.
Well for one thing, none of the good things you have mentioned are special to religion. Everything can be done be secular means as well. How has religion enhanced these things? Was there no religion beforehand? And while I'm glad wherever you are from has such open minded religious people, it more then likely they are so open minded because they do not actually follow their holy book and are "insert religion here" only in name.
Secondly, try praying for all pain, hunger, disease, and death in Africa to go away. Bet you it won't. Despite the millions that probably do pray for it. But nope....God is too busy getting you a banana. I think you get why I don't think prayer works.
And finally, ignorance is bliss, but the truth will set you free. Relying on prayer to get everything for you will cause technology to stagnate. Religion hasn't provided any benefit to humanity.
Post by: Realmfighter on November 24, 2012, 01:43:26 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 03:59:12 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
Because there's nothing disproving it.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
The only time when followed my religious principles strictly, rather than relying on someone else's interpretations, they went from a single city state to an empire in 29 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate). Whether that's a consequence of a lot of collective prayer or principles applied or just plain hard work and motivation, it works for me.
Well for one thing, none of the good things you have mentioned are special to religion. Everything can be done be secular means as well. How has religion enhanced these things? Was there no religion beforehand? And while I'm glad wherever you are from has such open minded religious people, it more then likely they are so open minded because they do not actually follow their holy book and are "insert religion here" only in name.
Secondly, try praying for all pain, hunger, disease, and death in Africa to go away. Bet you it won't. Despite the millions that probably do pray for it. But nope....God is too busy getting you a banana. I think you get why I don't think prayer works.
And finally, ignorance is bliss, but the truth will set you free. Relying on prayer to get everything for you will cause technology to stagnate. Religion hasn't provided any benefit to humanity.
See, a problem with most Atheists is that they too think that the evangelist / fundamentalist/ ... intrepretations are the only correct ones. Again, they seem to think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, that they are succesive phases in a search for knowledge. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is not a true [Insert Religion Here]. Probably this happens because of the fact that we're mostly dealing with Americans here, where there's a greater animosity between theists and atheists.
The fact that everything can be done through secular means is not an argument against religion. The fact that he got his banana is not because [Insert Diety here] gave him one from Heaven, but because someone else did so, while being motivated by his scriptures. Many religions don't preach the existence of an almighty diety doing everything for you, but an image from an ideal society. Some even say that the insights to be gotten from that are so refreshing, that they must have come from a higher being. Wherether that's true or not, I dunno?
Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There's
People who are already empathetic to human suffering give to charity without having to believe in God. "Gods word" means whatever you damn well want it too and charity is only required if you are already the kind of person who things charity should be required. But then on the other side whenever someone holds an opinion that's simultaneously massively hateful and illogical from a secular standpoint they can hold onto it completely by just saying the magic words "God said so".They can? Religion is just an excuse here, it's not at fault. People can find many more reasons to justify their opinion if need be. Taking away the excuse of religion would not solve nor aid to solve the problem.
Where do you live where that happens?The part of the world that is not America? Really, if you look around you find that the fundies account for only a small fraction of the religious population. Like 5-10% or so.
Post by: Muz on November 24, 2012, 06:49:29 am
Where do you live where that happens?Malaysia. I'm pretty sure it happens a lot in other countries too; I know a lot of the Muslim community in Australia were like that too. It's all about religious tolerance.
Quote
..it more then likely they are so open minded because they do not actually follow their holy book and are "insert religion here" only in name.
If they weren't open minded, then they would be going against the book.
Religious tolerance (http://quran.com/109) is a commandment. Insulting (http://quran.com/6/108) other people's religions is a sin. Forcing others (http://quran.com/2/256) to accept your way is a sin.
Relying on prayer to get everything for you will cause technology to stagnate. Religion hasn't provided any benefit to humanity.
That's a bold statement to make. I've never seen religion actually stagnate anything (aside from maybe in the US). I suspect you're just taking pot shots at Christian conservatives/traditionalists.
At the very least it does provide an incentive for people to do good, charities, etc. Of course, you can say that there are lots of atheists who do good, and there are, but a direct incentive amplifies the effect. Most good hearted people won't donate half their wealth to a stranger, but someone promised 700 times the return (http://quran.com/2/261) would be exceedingly generous.
There are plenty of very intelligent, ivy league educated, absolutely non-secular people. Islam strongly encourages people to learn, even considering it an act of jihad. Muhammad himself used to pray for knowledge. After prayer comes action, because while prayer is strongly encouraged, it's always been looked down upon to pray for something and not act on it.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 07:01:01 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 07:15:17 am
Though it's a question that often evokes an instant yes or no from many, if the majority of the people in the world were Atheist rather then then the other way round, would the world be any different? Or better? I'm inclined to go with humans are humans, but slightly thanks to the encouragement of taking a logical approach.It wouldn't. Humans are humans. They'd find another excuse to justify their hate.
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 07:15:39 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
Because there's nothing disproving it.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
The only time when followed my religious principles strictly, rather than relying on someone else's interpretations, they went from a single city state to an empire in 29 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate). Whether that's a consequence of a lot of collective prayer or principles applied or just plain hard work and motivation, it works for me.
Most things I've prayed for I haven't gotten.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 07:17:58 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 24, 2012, 07:34:19 am
Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There'shundredsthousands of missionaries there, trying to make the place better.
Hahah. You didn't write this seriously, did you? Because missionaries are (almost without exception) seriously like the most terrible people imaginable, and (generally) engage in doing terrible, destructive, unforgiveable things, and African missionaries (in particular) are renowned for, on average, being the worst of the worst. I'm certainly not one of those folks who's hostile to religion in general, but if you are going to start extolling the virtues of THAT particular for for destruction, I think we might have to part ways.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 07:40:50 am
I'd like to see you back that up. I've met several missionaries, and generally they're doing good work.Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There'sHahah. You didn't write this seriously, did you? Because missionaries are (almost without exception) seriously like the most terrible people imaginable, and (generally) engage in doing terrible, destructive, unforgiveable things, and African missionaries (in particular) are renowned for, on average, being the worst of the worst. I'm certainly not one of those folks who's hostile to religion in general, but if you are going to start extolling the virtues of THAT particular for for destruction, I think we might have to part ways.hundredsthousands of missionaries there, trying to make the place better.
Post by: Muz on November 24, 2012, 08:04:17 am
Most things I've prayed for I haven't gotten.
A sincere, humble one? Not a "if you want me to believe in you, give me (this stuff)"? Whether or not it's worded that way, an omniscient being can sense your intentions.
It's in essence, just a request from a divine being. It's up to God(s) whether or not they want to meet that request. And showing a little effort for the thing you asked for helps. If you ask for something just to see if you'd get it, I'm pretty sure anyone would reject that.
IMO, the typical 'religious' person's approach of "I can't help you but I'll pray for you" is very insulting to a supreme being. It's a spoiled attitude when you expect a God to do stuff for you if you're not willing to sacrifice some effort for it yourself.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 08:16:41 am
IMO, the typical 'religious' person's approach of "I can't help you but I'll pray for you" is very insulting to a supreme being. It's a spoiled attitude when you expect a God to do stuff for you if you're not willing to sacrifice some effort for it yourself.Depends on the situation. It could also mean, I can't help you, but I would if I could.
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 09:04:29 am
Most things I've prayed for I haven't gotten.
A sincere, humble one? Not a "if you want me to believe in you, give me (this stuff)"? Whether or not it's worded that way, an omniscient being can sense your intentions.
It's in essence, just a request from a divine being. It's up to God(s) whether or not they want to meet that request. And showing a little effort for the thing you asked for helps. If you ask for something just to see if you'd get it, I'm pretty sure anyone would reject that.
IMO, the typical 'religious' person's approach of "I can't help you but I'll pray for you" is very insulting to a supreme being. It's a spoiled attitude when you expect a God to do stuff for you if you're not willing to sacrifice some effort for it yourself.
Yep. I still didn't get it, very rarely have.
Post by: Darvi on November 24, 2012, 09:06:50 am
Spoiler: Relevant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2012, 09:14:45 am
The fact that everything can be done through secular means is not an argument against religion. The fact that he got his banana is not because [Insert Diety here] gave him one from Heaven, but because someone else did so, while being motivated by his scriptures.
It wouldn't. Humans are humans. They'd find another excuse to justify their hate.This is my favourite argument. "Good things? Yeah, they're all caused by religion. Bad things? Oh no, humans are humans, they're nothing to do with religion".
You keep acting like problems only exist in fundamentalist interpretations wheras actually the lack of basis problem is present in pretty much every interpretation of every religion (in fact it's the fundamentalist interpretations such as creationism that at least attempt to have a basis sometimes, although the evidence they turn to is usually flawed or incorrect).
Post by: alexandertnt on November 24, 2012, 09:18:42 am
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
Possibly a classic case of correlation != causation. In other words, coincidence. I would be curious as to what it is you prayed for and under what circumstances you aquired them. I am also not sure why any God(s) would concern themselves with someones craving for bananas why people are dying and praying much harder.
Prayer has not shown any effect with any studies done. Some people (a response which fustrates me) may just claim that "oh, but you can't study prayer". Why not? Does it hide itself when it is studied? is it intelligent now? Unfalsifiability is an indicator of something very faulty. If prayer works, it will have a noticible effect in the world (if it works it has to do something. If it has a noticible effect it can be studied).
Spoiler: Relevant (click to show/hide)
This. It pretty much explains prayer (at least the first image).
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
So you would rather live blindly then understand the mechanics behind how it works? One does not just "disbelieve", they apply logic to a given situation to get what they want instead of blindly "hope". You get a banana from prayer. Someone who casts doubt on prayer comes to the conclusion that a better solution is to grow a banana plant. Or perhaps become aware of their like for banana's and bring some with them. If someone focuses their efforts on aquiring what they want through reasonable and logical decisions, they will end up with much more done much more reliably than someone who prayes for the same thing. In my opinion at least, prayer blinds people to superior solutions to problems.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
One of the major arguments is think if you look at the sheer quantity of religions out there, and the various prerequisits to get to heaven/reincarnation/whatever, this would seem pretty silly. Which God(s) have you gambled your afterlife on (or lack of gods, as a few religions have it)?
Pascal's Wager is belief from fear. How many God(s) will let you in if you only believed them "to be safe rather than sorry"?
Most things I've prayed for I haven't gotten.
A sincere, humble one? Not a "if you want me to believe in you, give me (this stuff)"? Whether or not it's worded that way, an omniscient being can sense your intentions.
It's in essence, just a request from a divine being. It's up to God(s) whether or not they want to meet that request. And showing a little effort for the thing you asked for helps. If you ask for something just to see if you'd get it, I'm pretty sure anyone would reject that.
IMO, the typical 'religious' person's approach of "I can't help you but I'll pray for you" is very insulting to a supreme being. It's a spoiled attitude when you expect a God to do stuff for you if you're not willing to sacrifice some effort for it yourself.
Too many questions...
What is a sincere and humble prayer? How does one meet this criteria? What intentions do you have to have? Perhaps I have to sacrifice an animal to make in sincere?
Maby the Religion of the Lazy God is True, and showing effort hinders responses from the Lazy God.
Do all God(s) respond to prayer/equivelant? Which one should I pray to?
Why not invest that effort into aquiring that thing with proven methods?
How can you have an opinion that "a supreme being" would find that insulting? To do this you would have to have some idea about what this supreme being is, but this term is usually applied in a completely generic fashion. Maby the True Supreme Being like rewarding spoilt people?
When people try to refer to religion in a generic way, they almost always just replace God with Supreme Being and continue to act as if the Abrahamic religions are the scaffholding for all religions. They have not really generalised it at all. I am not a fan of arguments that argue on behalf of religion as a whole, since religions tend to be contradictory and poorly defined. People often seem to fill in gaps needed for an argument with assumptions that are no longer generalised (such as the assumption that showing effort helps prayer, despite this not being defined as part of "religion").
Quote
Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There's hundreds thousands of missionaries there, trying to make the place better.
Quote
I'd like to see you back that up. I've met several missionaries, and generally they're doing good work.
It depends on the person, not the fact that they are missionaries. There are plenty of good people out there doing good (that may or may not be missionaries) and plenty of bad people (again, missionary or not). Any missionary status does not imply that they are doing good or bad. I would be interested in seeing the correlation between missionaries and good/bad work done, versus the average population however, this might reveal some interesting information.
Also, Hello! My first post in this thread. Background: I was raised by non-religious parents (as in no mention of religion, not "raised to believe against religion") and have not seen a need for it. I understand the functions of the world quite clearly enough to not be confused by anything around me, and have had the ability to achieve and aquire what I have wanted reliabily and predictably through reasoning and work. I do not understand belief in belief (How can one do so? If you believe in belief as opposed to actual regular belief that seems to me to be basically admitting that it is false. That ain't getting you into heaven/whatever).
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 09:46:21 am
Besides, it's not like science is so clean too. Look at Taylorism and see what it did to workers in the 19the century. And is still doing today, in many countries.
This is wrong for several reasons.
First, Taylorism specifically was NOT the cause of industrial hardship in the 19th century, it was only pioneered right at the end of that century, so that makes it an aspect of the 20th century, not the 19th. The term "scientific management" itself wasn't coined until 1910 (over 20 years into the period Taylor was working on the ideas), and Taylor picked up the term in 1911.
Second: It could be easily argued that the study and standardization of jobs under Taylorism actually improved safety by creating standard operating procedures, the massive per-worker productivity boosts made the life-style everyone enjoys today, whilst unemployment has NOT risen since Taylorism was introduced and factory workers almost anywhere today are better-off than factory workers in the 1870's, before Taylorism even existed. In fact, it was Taylor who invented "rest breaks" through the same studies that increased efficiency:
Quote
by observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue, either physical (as in shoveling or lifting) or mental (as in the ball inspection case). Workers were taught to take more rests during work, and as a result production "paradoxically" increased.
Third, the term "Scientific management" has almost nothing to do with the scientific method, or theories arising from science. The term was purely adopted for marketing reasons.
Fourth, "Increased industrial efficiency" is not a specific goal of the scientific method. Empirical methods can be applied to optimize ANY measurable aspect of a system, it is 100% neutral to specific goals. e.g. "design processes to maximize worker's happiness" is just as scientific as increasing productivity. It's the value system of the factory owner which dictates how rationalism is applied. Science doesn't dictate values, it's a tool. Attacking science because of one persons use of mathematics to measure things, is like attacking bricks, hammers and nails because they were also used to create Auschwitz. "See what horrors architecture has wrought!".
Anyway, the most grave factory conditions are in places which DO NOT conduct "Scientific management" in the form of time-and-motion studies and analysis of how many rest breaks are the optimum, what sort of lighting is best for workers etc. What you find in the very worst factory conditions is that they conduct almost no actual studies AT ALL, and most of their slave-driver methods are the PRE-TAYLOR methods.
Finally, you yourself said that science and religion aren't incompatible, now you say "science did it too!" as an apology for something religion did.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 11:18:02 am
I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.
Because I get everything I prayed for. I was once in the middle of a desert, had a craving for a banana, so I made a lengthy sincere prayer for a banana. The next day, someone gave me a banana. I get about 90% of the things I pray for, and the rest can be classified as pending.
If it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'd rather live on prayer placebos than have it fail out of disbelief.
Because there's nothing disproving it.
Because of Pascal's Wager.
So, one of the major criticisms of Pascal's Wager is that belief in religion is to a minor disadvantage to the individual and a major disadvantage to society. But the society I live in is greatly enhanced by religion - lots of people sharing their wealth, giving aid and education to the poor, flooding donations in the name of God to disaster victims. No disadvantages; things like stem cell research is on full steam (with a lot of highly religious people participating), and there are no restrictions on alcohol or pork or whatever.
The only time when followed my religious principles strictly, rather than relying on someone else's interpretations, they went from a single city state to an empire in 29 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_Caliphate). Whether that's a consequence of a lot of collective prayer or principles applied or just plain hard work and motivation, it works for me.
Well for one thing, none of the good things you have mentioned are special to religion. Everything can be done be secular means as well. How has religion enhanced these things? Was there no religion beforehand? And while I'm glad wherever you are from has such open minded religious people, it more then likely they are so open minded because they do not actually follow their holy book and are "insert religion here" only in name.
Secondly, try praying for all pain, hunger, disease, and death in Africa to go away. Bet you it won't. Despite the millions that probably do pray for it. But nope....God is too busy getting you a banana. I think you get why I don't think prayer works.
And finally, ignorance is bliss, but the truth will set you free. Relying on prayer to get everything for you will cause technology to stagnate. Religion hasn't provided any benefit to humanity.
See, a problem with most Atheists is that they too think that the evangelist / fundamentalist/ ... intrepretations are the only correct ones. Again, they seem to think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, that they are succesive phases in a search for knowledge. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is not a true [Insert Religion Here]. Probably this happens because of the fact that we're mostly dealing with Americans here, where there's a greater animosity between theists and atheists.
The fact that everything can be done through secular means is not an argument against religion. The fact that he got his banana is not because [Insert Diety here] gave him one from Heaven, but because someone else did so, while being motivated by his scriptures. Many religions don't preach the existence of an almighty diety doing everything for you, but an image from an ideal society. Some even say that the insights to be gotten from that are so refreshing, that they must have come from a higher being. Wherether that's true or not, I dunno?
Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There'shundredsthousands of missionaries there, trying to make the place better. With small expense, the situation could be dramitically improved, but it's not done because everyone wants his things cheap. Besides, it's not like science is so clean too. Look at Taylorism and see what it did to workers in the 19the century. And is still doing today, in many countries.People who are already empathetic to human suffering give to charity without having to believe in God. "Gods word" means whatever you damn well want it too and charity is only required if you are already the kind of person who things charity should be required. But then on the other side whenever someone holds an opinion that's simultaneously massively hateful and illogical from a secular standpoint they can hold onto it completely by just saying the magic words "God said so".They can? Religion is just an excuse here, it's not at fault. People can find many more reasons to justify their opinion if need be. Taking away the excuse of religion would not solve nor aid to solve the problem.Where do you live where that happens?The part of the world that is not America? Really, if you look around you find that the fundies account for only a small fraction of the religious population. Like 5-10% or so.
OK, I'm an American Atheist, and have never met another atheist who acts as you say most do. Where are you getting these "most"s from? Where are your statistics?
And removing religion would help. They have charities but think about the massive amount of money that is donated to the church itself. Some people spend over 30% of their income on church donations. That money could be going to hungry people.
Missionaries are helping Africans? Great. Do what nonreligious people can do, but preach to them about your religion in exchange. O, BTW, the Pope decided that Africans shouldn't use condoms, or anything that can prevent AIDS in an AIDS heavy continent. So yes, getting rid of religion would help a lot.
Taylorism? Really? What does a cruel person's ideology have to do with science or God?
Quote
That's a bold statement to make. I've never seen religion actually stagnate anything (aside from maybe in the US). I suspect you're just taking pot shots at Christian conservatives/traditionalists.ummmm.... Islam? You know, the place where they take everything in their Holy book as scientific knowledge. They are taught that salt water cannot mix with fresh water, and this is all enforced by their religious government. People who speak out against it can be arrested and even executed. You think this hasn't happened in the past with other religions? You think it isn't happening now to a lessee degree? Creationists have tried to get their ideas taught in schools. If these ideas weren't shot down, how many future scientists would be spending their time trying to prove creationism? I'd rather have that cure for cancer 10 years earlier.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 12:02:59 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:06:41 pm
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 12:17:24 pm
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 12:21:55 pm
ummmm.... Islam? You know, the place where they take everything in their Holy book as scientific knowledge. They are taught that salt water cannot mix with fresh water, and this is all enforced by their religious government.Islam? You mean the religion that is responsible for algebra, optics, and the preservation of many Greek texts? The civilization that was the light of wisdom during the Middle Ages? Certainly religion has its methods of impeding progress, but I would be surprised to learn that there were many curious and scientific minds who were lured into such a trap and I think we call all agree that theists are very good and taking what is convenient from their holy books and leaving the rest.
The push for Creationism in schools is a problem, but I doubt you could even convince most Christians of its veracity. ID is more problematic but I don't see how it inhibits progress, more that it introduces questions into science that science has no business addressing.
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 12:25:04 pm
Someone said that the USA is decended from the Protestant English but everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic. When did this conversion happened?
Protestant British people, not just English.
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:31:25 pm
Someone said that the USA is decended from the Protestant English but everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic. When did this conversion happened?
Well, the "conversion" didn't happen at all. Half the USA was full of French and Spanish catholics even before the Protestants arrived, and the British brought a hell of a lot of Irish catholics and many others over (think about how many Italians are in the USA).
Post by: miauw62 on November 24, 2012, 12:32:59 pm
There was a TV-show here in Belgium about (generally old) missionaries (mainly in Africa and places like Haiti, of wich i can't remember the location), and these people generally seemed to be doing good work.I'd like to see you back that up. I've met several missionaries, and generally they're doing good work.Secondly, now that we're talking about Africa. There'sHahah. You didn't write this seriously, did you? Because missionaries are (almost without exception) seriously like the most terrible people imaginable, and (generally) engage in doing terrible, destructive, unforgiveable things, and African missionaries (in particular) are renowned for, on average, being the worst of the worst. I'm certainly not one of those folks who's hostile to religion in general, but if you are going to start extolling the virtues of THAT particular for for destruction, I think we might have to part ways.hundredsthousands of missionaries there, trying to make the place better.
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 12:35:58 pm
Someone said that the USA is decended from the Protestant English but everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic. When did this conversion happened?
Well, the "conversion" didn't happen at all. Half the USA was full of French and Spanish catholics even before the Protestants arrived, and the British brought a hell of a lot of Irish catholics and many others over (think about how many Italians are in the USA).
Think of all the German Protestant settlers too.
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:38:46 pm
majikero had the wrong idea in asking "When did this conversion happened?" since there was no great conversion, which I addressed, but majikero was also wrong that "everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic."
German Protestant settlers aren't relevant to the discussion, except that their existence just highlights that no "conversion" took place (like I said), since the German's are STILL protestants.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 12:41:32 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:43:31 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 12:43:43 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:46:41 pm
have you read the whole thread or just making assumptions?
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 12:47:40 pm
Does the existence of German Protestant settlers modify what I said? In what way?
majikero had the wrong idea in asking "When did this conversion happened?" since there was no great conversion, which I addressed, but majikero was also wrong that "everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic."
German Protestant settlers aren't relevant to the discussion, except that their existence just highlights that no "conversion" took place (like I said), since the German's are STILL protestants.
Woah woah, chill out. I was concurring with you. I was trying to show how they highlight that there wasn't really a conversion, rather that Protestants (possibly the majority of them) were coming to America later on.
Although, maybe there was at least some kind of a conversion with respect to the early USA. The point we're making here is that by the time the original USA was formed, the majority of the population were Protestants and so on (not Catholics), regardless of who was there first. Over time this has changed. My suggestion for this is the immigration of the Irish, Spanish, Poles and in recent times Latin Americans/Central Americans. Think of the sheer number of people with some kind of Latin American ancestry in the USA, and think about how many of them must have Catholic backgrounds. They still don't overtake the majority in terms of religion but Catholicism has certainly grown over time.
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 12:49:52 pm
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 12:54:07 pm
Oops sorry, internet and all, it's hard to read tone / intent. I assumed it was meant to be a refutation.
It's not that hard to read tone/intent, you just need to try not to jump to conclusions, but it's ok.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 12:55:15 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 01:06:46 pm
But I'll give it a shot. God has never bestowed new information that benefits humanity. Such as medicine or technology.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 02:11:16 pm
That's not what I said, at all. As you might remember, I was referring to Muz's example, not to the world at large. Not everything is caused by religion. Religion can aid or try to reinforce it, but it's not like religions have a copyright on Good or Bad.The fact that everything can be done through secular means is not an argument against religion. The fact that he got his banana is not because [Insert Diety here] gave him one from Heaven, but because someone else did so, while being motivated by his scriptures.It wouldn't. Humans are humans. They'd find another excuse to justify their hate.This is my favourite argument. "Good things? Yeah, they're all caused by religion. Bad things? Oh no, humans are humans, they're nothing to do with religion".
You keep acting like problems only exist in fundamentalist interpretations wheras actually the lack of basis problem is present in pretty much every interpretation of every religion (in fact it's the fundamentalist interpretations such as creationism that at least attempt to have a basis sometimes, although the evidence they turn to is usually flawed or incorrect).
That's where we differentiate I suppose. There's an entire branch of science build on intrepretation of Bible/ religion and as such they've got a variety of reasons to support their mandates.
Finally, you yourself said that science and religion aren't incompatible, now you say "science did it too!" as an apology for something religion did.Probably Fordism then. Or atleast the mindset of the people behind it.
The point I was trying to make was that the problem doesn't lie with the religion or the science, but with those who use it to justify their means.
OK, I'm an American Atheist, and have never met another atheist who acts as you say most do.Says that he doesn't focus on fundamentalist intrepretations alone. Then follows with a list of why religion is bad based solely on fundamentalist fractions of religion.QuoteThat's a bold statement to make. I've never seen religion actually stagnate anything (aside from maybe in the US). I suspect you're just taking pot shots at Christian conservatives/traditionalists.ummmm.... Islam? You know, the place where they take everything in their Holy book as scientific knowledge. They are taught that salt water cannot mix with fresh water, and this is all enforced by their religious government. People who speak out against it can be arrested and even executed. You think this hasn't happened in the past with other religions? You think it isn't happening now to a lessee degree? Creationists have tried to get their ideas taught in schools. If these ideas weren't shot down, how many future scientists would be spending their time trying to prove creationism? I'd rather have that cure for cancer 10 years earlier.
Way to go to break down your own argument.
And removing religion would help. They have charities but think about the massive amount of money that is donated to the church itself. Some people spend over 30% of their income on church donations. That money could be going to hungry people.
Missionaries are helping Africans? Great. Do what nonreligious people can do, but preach to them about your religion in exchange. O, BTW, the Pope decided that Africans shouldn't use condoms, or anything that can prevent AIDS in an AIDS heavy continent. So yes, getting rid of religion would help a lot.
People give money to governements too, and it uses a lot of that to pay for it's own infrastructure. I suppose we should drop that too. The people who spend more than 30% of their income are often the highly religious, evangelists, ...
As for the Pope, it was an unlucky statement. It does fit in the Christian vision, which generally denounces sex merely for pleasure, promoting stable relations found in love, rather than the constant short unstable relations we start to see more today. But for things Pope has done, maybe you should look at the action of Pope Johannus Paulus II who was hugely important during the anti-communist revolutions in Poland, as well as in many other countries.
Besides if religion is such a dumb, non sensical thing as everyone of you seem to see, then why are there still so many religious people. It's not like they are dumb, or indoctrinated, or anything. So why?
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 02:14:03 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 02:16:45 pm
Yeah... that last point? I have quite the suspicion most religious people were raised into it from a very young age. They told them that was how it was, and there wasn't an if.I can't say about you, but in most Western countries people get to choose from themselves. Besides, it doesn't explain conversions, and such.
The rising from a very young age is something you see often in sects and such.
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 02:24:01 pm
Says that he doesn't focus on fundamentalist intrepretations alone. Then follows with a list of why religion is bad based solely on fundamentalist fractions of religion.Why wouldn't you? I'm more of a religious apologist than anything but it's easy to to see that fundamentalism and radicalism are the biggest sources of problems for religion.
Way to go to break down your own argument.
Quote
Besides if religion is such a dumb, non sensical thing as everyone of you seem to see, then why are there still so many religious people. It's not like they are dumb, or indoctrinated, or anything. So why?You aren't going to get very far with that argument, mostly because it's hard to say that religions don't indoctrinate their adherents. It's not indoctrination with malicious intent, and in fact much of child-rearing is in fact instilling beliefs in children that they are expected not to question, as these beliefs are so fundamental to society that to invite questioning them puts the whole system at risk. And further, speaking as an atheist, it can seem kind of silly that an otherwise rational person would believe in something so blatantly anthropocentric as the Abrahamic traditions.
I'd say the real reason there are so many theists has little to do with the merits of the beliefs themselves on a truth scale and more to do with the simultaneous birth of religion and government and the fact that they have been inextricably conflated throughout history. Society is bound by and based on religious tradition. Even someone like myself, who was raised nonreligious, finds his actions and mores are often based on religious ideals.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 02:24:51 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 24, 2012, 02:25:27 pm
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 02:26:17 pm
Yeah... that last point? I have quite the suspicion most religious people were raised into it from a very young age. They told them that was how it was, and there wasn't an if.I can't say about you, but in most Western countries people get to choose from themselves. Besides, it doesn't explain conversions, and such.
The rising from a very young age is something you see often in sects and such.
I was raised in a fairly non-religious background, though I was a Christian through childhood; agnostic father, atheist mother, went to church with my grandparents and brother until I realised I didn't like it. I was baptised too. I have been given the choice that you describe and I came to my own conclusions about religion - that it's nonsense. You may also see the rapidly growing number of atheists and agnostics worldwide - people who do not follow a particular religion. In my own country, going to church is rapidly becoming something for the elderly.
But yeah, ebbor, it's not that I see all people who follow organized religion as "dumb", they just don't ask questions, or they are indoctrinated. Maybe they're dumb in a certain way.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 02:28:24 pm
You get 'de facto' choices in western culture, but what's expected of you is still expected of you. You see, children aren't given all the facts, and certainly not objectively, (not that that'd help much, they probably wouldn't understand) and are, literally, indoctrinated.
my opinion on it.
EDIT: I'd like to say this doesn't make people dumb, just effects their thoughts later on.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2012, 02:29:40 pm
That's not what I said, at all. As you might remember, I was referring to Muz's example, not to the world at large. Not everything is caused by religion. Religion can aid or try to reinforce it, but it's not like religions have a copyright on Good or Bad.The point is that you're using a human nature argument to say that religion can never cause bad things, but also trying to claim that religion can cause good things (surely you could equally say "Human nature, people would do those good things with or without religion"). You can't have it both ways.
That's where we differentiate I suppose. There's an entire branch of science build on intrepretation of Bible/ religion and as such they've got a variety of reasons to support their mandates.What is this entire branch of science? Theology is not a science and I don't think many theologians claim it to be one in this day and age.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 02:43:30 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 02:47:39 pm
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 02:52:00 pm
I doubt most people don't even know about that.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 02:53:33 pm
Quote from: 10ebbor10
I didn't focus on fundamental interpretations. Someone states that religion doesn't cause stagnation in technology, I point out how it does, and is still doing so. I don't care if its only fundementalists. The fundamentalists are following the word of their holy book. The mere existance of religion creates these fundamentalists. It would be great if all these holy books were gotten rid of. But then there wouldn't be religion, there would be a horde of people with their own version of God.OK, I'm an American Atheist, and have never met another atheist who acts as you say most do.Says that he doesn't focus on fundamentalist intrepretations alone. Then follows with a list of why religion is bad based solely on fundamentalist fractions of religion.QuoteThat's a bold statement to make. I've never seen religion actually stagnate anything (aside from maybe in the US). I suspect you're just taking pot shots at Christian conservatives/traditionalists.ummmm.... Islam? You know, the place where they take everything in their Holy book as scientific knowledge. They are taught that salt water cannot mix with fresh water, and this is all enforced by their religious government. People who speak out against it can be arrested and even executed. You think this hasn't happened in the past with other religions? You think it isn't happening now to a lessee degree? Creationists have tried to get their ideas taught in schools. If these ideas weren't shot down, how many future scientists would be spending their time trying to prove creationism? I'd rather have that cure for cancer 10 years earlier.
Way to go to break down your own argument.And removing religion would help. They have charities but think about the massive amount of money that is donated to the church itself. Some people spend over 30% of their income on church donations. That money could be going to hungry people.
Missionaries are helping Africans? Great. Do what nonreligious people can do, but preach to them about your religion in exchange. O, BTW, the Pope decided that Africans shouldn't use condoms, or anything that can prevent AIDS in an AIDS heavy continent. So yes, getting rid of religion would help a lot.
People give money to governements too, and it uses a lot of that to pay for it's own infrastructure. I suppose we should drop that too. The people who spend more than 30% of their income are often the highly religious, evangelists, ...
As for the Pope, it was an unlucky statement. It does fit in the Christian vision, which generally denounces sex merely for pleasure, promoting stable relations found in love, rather than the constant short unstable relations we start to see more today. But for things Pope has done, maybe you should look at the action of Pope Johannus Paulus II who was hugely important during the anti-communist revolutions in Poland, as well as in many other countries.
Besides if religion is such a dumb, non sensical thing as everyone of you seem to see, then why are there still so many religious people. It's not like they are dumb, or indoctrinated, or anything. So why?
The governments infrastructure includes roads, post offices, things that allow us to have the billions of people we do on earth. Religion's infrastructure has what besides its decorations, stained glass, and other luxuries? What benefits people that cannot be done without religion?
OK, some other Pope was a nice person. So what? Good people do good things, you don't need religion for that. The point I was trying to make was that with religion, people can end up doing terrrible things, thinking that it is good because some all knowing being thinks it's right.
I would love to go further on this, but I am limited to what I can do on a phone. Also, loving how some of my arguments are being ignored.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 02:54:51 pm
Agreed, the church is powerless, but the point of my words was not that you're not allowed to interpret the bible, but the way in which kids are taught about christianity.
@Micro:
Religion, is a dated and uneccesary faculty, it doesn't make sense anymore. It's a bit of a sham really, specifically catholicism, which was used to repress people back in the day (A long ass time ago of course, in the past couple hundred years they've cooled down and become the Ottoman Empire of religions).
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:00:22 pm
Quote
Posted by: Micro102« on: Today at 02:53:33 pm »
OK, some other Pope was a nice person. So what? Good people do good things, you don't need religion for that. The point I was trying to make was that with religion, people can end up doing terrrible things, thinking that it is good because some all knowing being thinks it's right.
By that logic, you rather have many people doing terrible things, thinking they're doing good and blame other people doing good things because it's terrible to them.
It's still the same thing. Different people have different value of good and bad.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 03:02:45 pm
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 03:03:08 pm
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:06:19 pm
that doesn't make sense to me, I read 'He'd rather have people doing good things, and not have people doing bad things in the name of religon calling them good things.'
Replace religion with justice and you still get the same thing. People doing bad things in the name of justice thinking it's good.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 03:08:33 pm
that doesn't make sense to me, I read 'He'd rather have people doing good things, and not have people doing bad things in the name of religon calling them good things.'Well, yeah. Don't see how you can read it any other way then this.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 03:09:29 pm
ok, that happens. Alot, actually. But what is the point you're trying to make? I'm still confused.
EDIT: that's what morals are 'ideas of good & evil' what exactly do you mean when you say "Doing bad things in the name of <X> thinking there good" ?
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:10:23 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 03:11:34 pm
No, it's not the same. Justice is not based on some divine being made up by people with a completely different set of morals from today's community.that doesn't make sense to me, I read 'He'd rather have people doing good things, and not have people doing bad things in the name of religon calling them good things.'
Replace religion with justice and you still get the same thing. People doing bad things in the name of justice thinking it's good.
Post by: Darvi on November 24, 2012, 03:12:57 pm
And then you find out that there's laws against flirting.No, it's not the same. Justice is not based on some divine being made up by people with a completely different set of morals from today's community.that doesn't make sense to me, I read 'He'd rather have people doing good things, and not have people doing bad things in the name of religon calling them good things.'
Replace religion with justice and you still get the same thing. People doing bad things in the name of justice thinking it's good.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:14:13 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 03:15:07 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 03:15:22 pm
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 03:17:39 pm
Yeah, we Americans are mostly descended from protestants, although most of us are too ignorant to know it. Seriously, I was in school and like the entire rest of the class didn't think Catholicism was Christianity. And we do have some catholic presence, from Italian immigrants and such that have Assimilated.
Interestingly, a lot of Americans even think that the early settlers went Leftpondian in order to escape religion whereas, on the balance of things, they were looking for a place to be more religious.
But (as per the last post, that I just edited out of existence) I may well be ninjaed. Or just irrelevant. But as the thread's growing so quickly I'm still posting prematurely.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:23:07 pm
I'm getting the sense that maybe we're having a slight disconnect here. Maybe, because you're both explaining it differently?
Lets try to exlplain one more time.
Justice is based on someone on the top saying which is right or wrong.
Religion is based on people putting words on the divine beings mouth, saying which is right or wrong.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 03:27:20 pm
Micro is talking about people not doing bad things trying to justify it with religion (I think)
and you're talking about... something similar I think. What are you saying? people shouldn't do bad things? or that people are doing stuff and THINKING its good because its for religion?
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:28:54 pm
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 03:32:27 pm
EDIT: that's what morals are 'ideas of good & evil' what exactly do you mean when you say "Doing bad things in the name of <X> thinking there good" ?
Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was directed at me. The God from the Bible is depicted as all knowing. People view him as all benevolent (don't know if it says he is in the Bible or not). The thing is, the Bible was written thousand of years ago and we now have a different understanding of the world. The Pope thought he was doing God's will and actually stated that not using protection would decrease the amount of aids in Africa. Obviously a foolish thing to do. But his belief that God knows what's best caused him to make a choice that probably killed thousands of people.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2012, 03:36:53 pm
What are they gonna do about it? Raid your home while your praying with rosaries and talking about bible stories and what lesson you learn from it?Somebody's never watched The Da Vinci Code.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:41:00 pm
Do you honestly believe that the pope did it because God said so? Your more religious than I thought. Did it ever occur to you that the church has other reasons?
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 03:49:49 pm
@MicroIt did. But what could their intentions be? The death of africans? Are all of their intentions not religious regarding this? If that is the case, shouldn't such a system simply be removed? If religion doesn't benefit people but provides a way to hurt them, then why have it?
Do you honestly believe that the pope did it because God said so? Your more religious than I thought. Did it ever occur to you that the church has other reasons?
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 03:57:36 pm
In a perfect world, everyone is happy but no the world is not perfect.
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 04:01:25 pm
@MicroIt did. But what could their intentions be? The death of africans? Are all of their intentions not religious regarding this? If that is the case, shouldn't such a system simply be removed? If religion doesn't benefit people but provides a way to hurt them, then why have it?
Do you honestly believe that the pope did it because God said so? Your more religious than I thought. Did it ever occur to you that the church has other reasons?
Outbreeding all the other religions is a good motive.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 04:05:17 pm
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 04:05:50 pm
It did. But what could their intentions be? The death of africans? Are all of their intentions not religious regarding this? If that is the case, shouldn't such a system simply be removed? If religion doesn't benefit people but provides a way to hurt them, then why have it?Religion has been a motivating force for some great discoveries and beautiful works of art. Have you ever felt complete awe and astonishment about the world? Religion, while not necessary for it, has given many people the gift of that experience. To say that it does no benefit is to ignore that religion is a tool and like all tools it has been used for both good and bad throughout history.
But really I think the issue is that we're not likely to excise religious belief because the manners of thought that lead to those beliefs are particularly natural for humans. People like to feel important, they like to have the answers to questions, they like to feel secure, and they like a subject without ambiguity. If we can't eradicate those things from human thought, and I don't think we can, then it doesn't seem likely we'll have better luck with religion.
Post by: Darvi on November 24, 2012, 04:07:23 pm
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 04:10:39 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 24, 2012, 04:19:51 pm
In a nutshell empathy allows us to "anthropomorphize" other humans (we really have no direct proof they're not just human-shaped automata). That same mental faculty for ascribing volition to another person can just as easily imagine there being a "brain" in a tree, a volcano, the sun, or the moon.
btw, there's a really good argument that the god of Moses was a volcano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtI-lSvS028
Post by: Mlamlah on November 24, 2012, 04:20:31 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 04:23:44 pm
@micro: before, the 'EDIT:' was directed a maj
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 04:29:13 pm
It did. But what could their intentions be? The death of africans? Are all of their intentions not religious regarding this? If that is the case, shouldn't such a system simply be removed? If religion doesn't benefit people but provides a way to hurt them, then why have it?Religion has been a motivating force for some great discoveries and beautiful works of art. Have you ever felt complete awe and astonishment about the world? Religion, while not necessary for it, has given many people the gift of that experience. To say that it does no benefit is to ignore that religion is a tool and like all tools it has been used for both good and bad throughout history.
But really I think the issue is that we're not likely to excise religious belief because the manners of thought that lead to those beliefs are particularly natural for humans. People like to feel important, they like to have the answers to questions, they like to feel secure, and they like a subject without ambiguity. If we can't eradicate those things from human thought, and I don't think we can, then it doesn't seem likely we'll have better luck with religion.
Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 04:32:26 pm
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 04:35:36 pm
Was religion the driving force? No, another circumstance would have arisen, but... ya.
Post by: Darvi on November 24, 2012, 04:35:56 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 04:38:57 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 04:41:07 pm
Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".Albert was a jew, Newton was Catholic, the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a priest. There's a bloody lot to choose from.
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.
Most large empires were kept together by a single religion, and would have fallen apart otherwise.
Please provide evidence that [Insert anything you want here] was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without [Insert anything here]. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.Really, give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters and they will eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good playwright though.
Even if i was catholic, i would have a hard time believing anything the pope says. The Pope is supposed to be the very voice of god... and yet... throughout history the popes have had wildly different opinions on various issues, and occasionally have backed things that are factually *wrong*. Either the God whispering in their ear is fickle, the Popes have been liars at various parts of history or... dare i say it... the Popes have *not* had a phone line with God.Speaking of which, I'm not sure if the Pope is even referenced to in the Bible. I believe he isn't.
As for bible related sciences:
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)
In retrospect the thing that religon has given to the scientific community is that early on, monastic communities had alot of time to study and observe due to their lifestlye. In fact early genetics research was conducted by monks.Nothing is caused by a single factor. If someone went back in time and shot Einstein, we would still have discovered the theory of relativity. Only later.
Was religion the driving force? No, another circumstance would have arisen, but... ya.
Post by: majikero on November 24, 2012, 04:42:14 pm
Did you know there's a Cardinal with the last name of Sin(Xin in Chinese)?
Post by: Darvi on November 24, 2012, 04:43:07 pm
Most large empires were kept together by a single religion, and would have fallen apart otherwise.They did.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on November 24, 2012, 04:44:00 pm
2.) Let's all agree that in the modern era of polico-economic motivators religion is superfluous
Post by: Owlbread on November 24, 2012, 04:49:04 pm
1.) Hilarious
2.) Let's all agree that in the modern era of polico-economic motivators religion is superfluous
Put simply, we have outgrown it. Now it mostly causes problems and is driving the middle east backwards while we're going forwards - stem cell research, cloning, all sorts wouldn't be possible without the decline of religion's influence over us.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 04:50:30 pm
Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".Albert was a jew, Newton was Catholic, the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a priest. There's a bloody lot to choose from.
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.
Most large empires were kept together by a single religion, and would have fallen apart otherwise.Please provide evidence that [Insert anything you want here] was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without [Insert anything here]. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.Really, give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters and they will eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good playwright though.Even if i was catholic, i would have a hard time believing anything the pope says. The Pope is supposed to be the very voice of god... and yet... throughout history the popes have had wildly different opinions on various issues, and occasionally have backed things that are factually *wrong*. Either the God whispering in their ear is fickle, the Popes have been liars at various parts of history or... dare i say it... the Popes have *not* had a phone line with God.Speaking of which, I'm not sure if the Pope is even referenced to in the Bible. I believe he isn't.
As for bible related sciences:
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)In retrospect the thing that religon has given to the scientific community is that early on, monastic communities had alot of time to study and observe due to their lifestlye. In fact early genetics research was conducted by monks.Nothing is caused by a single factor. If someone went back in time and shot Einstein, we would still have discovered the theory of relativity. Only later.
Was religion the driving force? No, another circumstance would have arisen, but... ya.
You are making a hell of a lot of assertions. Please provide some sort of evidence for these.
As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2012, 04:51:22 pm
As for bible related sciences:Interpretation of text isn't a science. That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)
Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true. The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 04:58:35 pm
Religion has been a motivating force for some great discoveries and beautiful works of art.It has also been a motivating force for suppressing or even destroying art.
Usually of opposing[1] or actually very similar[2] other religions, admittedly, but that's probably because purely secular arts are harder to come in the historic times where religious patronage was the source of most of these "non-essential productions".
When it comes to discoveries it's a bit easier to talk about. Galileo is an obvious one. Research into stem-cells is a more modern example (separation of church and state? nope...). That art of Crop Rotation was certainly suppressed at times (although often farmers and others may have just ignored such stupid rules).
The early Islamic world did indeed help support (and develop) the sciences whilst the European situation abandoned such fripperies during the Dark Ages (give or take), but there are certainly significant parts of the 'modern' Islamic world where stagnation and even regression has set in. It's probably more a matter of those with power keeping those without it oppressed, which of course is not unique to a certain religion (or even religion at all). But it's at least as handy a doctrine as (frexample) a Communist state of recent times might have used to repress its population into a subservient 'people machine'. (More contemporary situations in various other ostensibly secular situations could also be mentioned, but may be hard to assess quite so thoroughly without the benefit of hindsight.)
What? 12 new replies? Sheesh. Hot topic.
[1] Buddhist statues dynamited by the Taliban
[2] Historic church paintings whitewashed over by puritans.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 05:01:57 pm
As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.Say that Columbus's ship sunk. We would have found America anyway, because a Portugese ship had lost is course while on it's way to Africa, and hit South America. (See, even without the want for a shorter route, America would have been explored).
As for the other things, google them. Wikipedia can easily provide the answers you need. Why did you think Einstein moved to America?
As for bible related sciences:Interpretation of text isn't a science. That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)
Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true. The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.
Sorry, I meant Hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics), which is indeed the art and science of text intrepretation. Exegese is just when it happens to be the bible.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 24, 2012, 05:04:20 pm
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 05:12:45 pm
Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion.
If you don't mind a generalistic example, there have been any number of scientific discoveries by ecclesiastical persons (Gregor Mendel and his peas, for example), who would have ultimately been at least partially supported by the church system's tithes of the general population who couldn't afford to think outside the box (probably bred strains of peas of their, but never would have had time to formalise their discoveries or ultimately spread their knowledge to the same extent, perhaps just to fellow pea-farmers, assuming these weren't to be closely held family secrets... which would be ironic, in its own way).
Without religion? Maybe the peasants would have needed less time to support the non-existent church establishments, or maybe not. There's the other privileged classes in such hierarchical societies. I wouldn't presume to say one way or another whether a (subtly different) rerun world would have gotten better or worse developments. Different, though. Definitely different.
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 05:17:37 pm
Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.How can I provide evidence that doesn't conflict with speculation? We can say anything might have been discovered earlier and justify it with the presence or absence of any number of things. What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.
Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 05:25:30 pm
Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.
Albert has often been misquoted/misinterpreted in this regard. It didn't help that he used lines like "God does not play dice with the universe". He self-identified as agnostic and a non-believer (but not hard-line atheist, which he also criticised), having been ethnically Jewish but largely become non-observant even during childhood, IIRC, and I think Spinoza comes into the equation, somewhat, but it's hard to tie down any particular person's viewpoint as being the same as another so I won't even try.
(Oh yeah... fqllve's reply, just put in, reminds me... It's "...that might not have been...". Sorry, but it's an annoying grammatical mistake that, for me. I'm sure you can find something in my text you don't like, in return.)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 05:27:22 pm
Yeaaah I guess it's "scientific" in that it's the study of something but that's still pretty much splitting hairs. It doesn't mean that the Bible's claim have any scientific basis.It does mean that the intrepretations ain't something someone just made up. Which was the point I was trying to prove.
And yeah, it's possible that religion as a formalized institute is outdated. Historically, it's been having a strong decline in recent years. Which makes sense if you view it on basis of certain theories. One of which is an interesting one that said (I'm cutting corners here, and basing it on memories from like 2 years ago) that religion was founded out of an "attempt" to prevent unnessecairy violence, and as a basis for a moral system. In that case you can see a pattern. First you got nothing, then primitive religions, later you get more complicated religions, after which they are gradually replaced by nationalistic/imperialistic tendencies, which are then replaced by individualistic tendencies. Each is replaced by the next when it goes wrong, and you get a massive slaughter of some kind.
Do note that this is just a theory, and that even in it's original form it didn't cover the entire point.
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 05:30:40 pm
Post by: Starver on November 24, 2012, 05:47:44 pm
Albert was a jew, Newton was Catholic, the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a priest.Already dealt with Albert.
Newton had some weird shit going on in his personal philosophy (and lived at a time when you basically had to be religiously interested, at least superficially), and I think thought that worship of Christ was idolatrous.
Do you mean Lemaitre? (He was a priest, yes.) It's popularly supposed that Hubble was the guy to thank (or Hoyle), although he's just the guy who popularised it (or, for Hoyle, the one who gave the idea the name we know it by, albeit while being a bit of a sceptic about it).
The last example shows that there was, indeed, not just one person to thank. But there may still have been ideas that were only thought of by one person (then developed by others, who would not have reached the same conclusions without that progenitor). Who knows how many ideas one person did not come up with (or did not get into the public domain), and thus we find ourselves denied something synonymous with the Theory Of Relativity or Evolution or whatever...
However, back to a prior point, certainly in Newton's time the college system that he inhabited plainly draws upon the ecumenical schooling system and only by his being able to be hothoused in such an institution (regardless of personal belief) might he have attained his legacy. Also the invention of the cat-flap, allegedly. ;)
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 06:21:02 pm
wow just like religion. Having a conclusion and finding evidence to support it. So what if another ship found America? How does that prove the theory that nothin is dependant on one factor?As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.Say that Columbus's ship sunk. We would have found America anyway, because a Portugese ship had lost is course while on it's way to Africa, and hit South America. (See, even without the want for a shorter route, America would have been explored).
As for the other things, google them. Wikipedia can easily provide the answers you need. Why did you think Einstein moved to America?As for bible related sciences:Interpretation of text isn't a science. That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)
Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true. The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.
Sorry, I meant Hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics), which is indeed the art and science of text intrepretation. Exegese is just when it happens to be the bible.
And there is a reason why Wikipedia is not considered a viable source of information for papers. Get your info from peer reviewed material.
O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.How can I provide evidence that doesn't conflict with speculation? We can say anything might have been discovered earlier and justify it with the presence or absence of any number of things. What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.
Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.
"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?
Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful.
Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 24, 2012, 06:32:51 pm
wow just like religion. Having a conclusion and finding evidence to support it. So what if another ship found America? How does that prove the theory that nothin is dependant on one factor? It means that the discovery of America wasn't based on said single factor, because it would have been if said factor is eleminated. Nothing ever is.As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.Say that Columbus's ship sunk. We would have found America anyway, because a Portugese ship had lost is course while on it's way to Africa, and hit South America. (See, even without the want for a shorter route, America would have been explored).
As for the other things, google them. Wikipedia can easily provide the answers you need. Why did you think Einstein moved to America?As for bible related sciences:Interpretation of text isn't a science. That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.
Bible intrepretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)
Religious studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies)
Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true. The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.
Sorry, I meant Hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics), which is indeed the art and science of text intrepretation. Exegese is just when it happens to be the bible.
And there is a reason why Wikipedia is not considered a viable source of information for papers. Get your info from peer reviewed material.
Of course, just like you always cited scientific papers with every fact you said.O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.How can I provide evidence that doesn't conflict with speculation? We can say anything might have been discovered earlier and justify it with the presence or absence of any number of things. What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.
Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.
"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?Causality=/= Correlation. Do you have any scientific studies to prove these things, to indicate that this are not depressed people killing their family, people being distrustfull of medicine(have a lot of these), conservationists, the justifications of an economical system(Many religious people actually protested against slavery and such), just racism in general, whitewashing attempts by a major organisation, a nationalist group trying to defend itself against American imperialism( or even an American complot ) or the creation of a common enemy to reinforce nationalism. You don't need to go on, you need to provide facts that clearly state the link between the religion involved and the action.
Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful. Religious art is a major factor of art history. Can't just ignore it.
Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 06:42:56 pm
@10ebbor10 I love how you asked me to look everything up then ask me to cite everything for you. I WILL cite everything for you. But in exchange, I want an apology if you deem the citations reliable. It will have to be later today when I get home. My phone is not capable of this level of multitasking.
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 07:04:02 pm
O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'People can think the world is going to end without religion (see: 2012, Y2k, etc) and want to spare their family from that. People can treat their sick family members with nonreligious snake oils and non-cures (see: homeopathy). Cultural conservativism exists outside of religion. Nonreligious societies have been just as quick to devalue human life as religious ones. I will admit that Catholic doctrine seems to promote pedophilia, but that doesn't mean the situation requires religion. Any organization could be structured as such. Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion? Hitler was not particularly religious, though he was influenced by some insane supernatural and occult beliefs. Really the Holocaust was more about notions of racial purity and scapegoating than it was about anything religious.
"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?
Quote
Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful.Large portions of historical art are religious, so they certainly are archaeologically important at the very least. The foundations of Western classical music lie in religious art. Religious art can be just as innovative and influential as nonreligious and often has been. It can say just as much about the world and it can be just as bleak and as grotesque.
Think of all the myriad paintings depicting religious scenes (even discounting the ones done of dubious faith), the masses of Bach and Mozart and the requiems of Brahms and Faure, much of the great architecture of the ancient world was for religious structures and much early literature has origins in transcribing religious tales. To say that religious art isn't important is to not understand art.
Quote
Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.You can't say what might have been discovered earlier or what would have been discovered earlier without religion anyway. Because we don't live in a world without religion anything like that would be speculation. Now, there are certainly cases where you can make a reasoned judgment, but it's not like I could still provide evidence to the contrary because you are asking for evidence that doesn't conflict with hypothetical. That whole avenue of discussion seems pointless to me.
I'd also like to point out that religious people making important discoveries does not mean religion was the cause of those discoveries. It would have some credibility if one of these people said that some non human being taught it to him. But that hasn't happened. Mendel used the scientific method to determine the way the peas had offspring, nothing religiously oriented....no one said anyone used religion to make scientific discoveries. I certainly wouldn't say that because I'm an atheist. Rather, I specifically said it was their motivation. As in, it was belief in their deity that motivated them to pursue lines of scientific inquiry. I'm not aware that Mendel actually expressed that belief in God was what made him undertake his studies, but I know that Spinoza and ibn-al-Haytham explicitly did.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 24, 2012, 07:26:55 pm
Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.
Quote from: Albert Einstein
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that Albert Einstein was an agnostic, given that the quote you gave is vauge and incomplete plus sounds alot like it could have been taken out of place.
Yeaaah I guess it's "scientific" in that it's the study of something but that's still pretty much splitting hairs. It doesn't mean that the Bible's claim have any scientific basis.It does mean that the intrepretations ain't something someone just made up. Which was the point I was trying to prove.
Please do not try to prove a point by declaring something as being a science, which is well defined.
Quote
Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.
really? Religion gives people a false belief in how the universe works, an outdated belief that can have been around for thousands (and even longer) of years. When people are satisfied they know all, they stop seeking out how the universe actually works, the sort of facts that can be actually be utilised and yield something. Plus, some religions in particular don't take well to people thinking differently to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) not because they are possibly wrong, but because it is merely a different viewpoint. This hinders progress, since it effectively places an unquestionable scaffolding in place.
Quote
People can think the world is going to end without religion (see: 2012, Y2k, etc) and want to spare their family from that. People can treat their sick family members with nonreligious snake oils and non-cures (see: homeopathy). Cultural conservativism exists outside of religion. Nonreligious societies have been just as quick to devalue human life as religious ones. I will admit that Catholic doctrine seems to promote pedophilia, but that doesn't mean the situation requires religion. Any organization could be structured as such. Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion? Hitler was not particularly religious, though he was influenced by some insane supernatural and occult beliefs. Really the Holocaust was more about notions of racial purity and scapegoating than it was about anything religious.
Never did anyone say that religion is the only cause of bad things, but that it can lead to and contribute to bad things. "Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion" I don't know how you could work this implication from the quote you are responding to. Micro102 is neither saying that nor implying that.
Quote
Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.
"Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else" is an assertion.
Quote
Causality=/= Correlation. Do you have any scientific studies to prove these things.
This (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015022.htm) study on Christian Science may be quite interesting.
Quote
Religious art is a major factor of art history. Can't just ignore it.
Of course it is. But like you said Causality !-> Correlation. Perhaps Art in a significate form may have existed without religion?
Also, I am not sure what the big deal over Art is in respect to religion is.
Quote
Large portions of historical art are religious, so they certainly are archaeologically important at the very least. The foundations of Western classical music lie in religious art. Religious art can be just as innovative and influential as nonreligious and often has been. It can say just as much about the world and it can be just as bleak and as grotesque.
Think of all the myriad paintings depicting religious scenes (even discounting the ones done of dubious faith), the masses of Bach and Mozart and the requiems of Brahms and Faure, much of the great architecture of the ancient world was for religious structures and much early literature has origins in transcribing religious tales. To say that religious art isn't important is to not understand art.
I think what the person you were quoting was trying to say is that the religious aspects of Art are not beautiful, but the art itself it. That is, religius art is important, but its the art itself, not the religiousness of the art that is important.
But again, why the focus on Art? I think it is pretty safe to say that without religion, art would have existed.
Post by: Strife26 on November 24, 2012, 07:30:20 pm
It seems like a pretty pointless hole to argue down to me. Why don't we argue the pertinence of pants? I mean, the Roman's weren't great fans of them until the later stages of their empire, after all.
Religon's a great motivator. Maybe even *the* great motivator. What it motivates is, one way or another, not religion's fault.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 24, 2012, 07:37:56 pm
Religon's a great motivator. Maybe even *the* great motivator. What it motivates is, one way or another, not religion's fault.
Religion is not an intelligent entity. It can not be faulted for anything itself, it is just a word. However, religion is the name given to a type of human behaviour and that can be faulted.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 07:46:05 pm
OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.
I'm gonna stand by my statement that I'd rather have the technology. Its not like art would disappear, there would just be more non religious art.
I feel like this is going to explode into a philosophical debate, so I'm just gonna agree with you.
I saw some posts that may have implied it, so I just put the argument out there.
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 08:21:28 pm
really? Religion gives people a false belief in how the universe works, an outdated belief that can have been around for thousands (and even longer) of years. When people are satisfied they know all, they stop seeking out how the universe actually works, the sort of facts that can be actually be utilised and yield something. Plus, some religions in particular don't take well to people thinking differently to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) not because they are possibly wrong, but because it is merely a different viewpoint. This hinders progress, since it effectively places an unquestionable scaffolding in place.And only religion causes these things? Only religion makes people be so sure in their beliefs that their curiosity dies? Only religion stifles dissent? To be sure, religion does do these things. But they do not require religion. Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree, and I'm not convinced that's the case either.
OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.
I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Hitler was particularly religious, but if you've got any citations I'd be interested in them. However, in all the propaganda I've seen religious-themed stuff has been the minority. Now that might be a trick of historical revisionism, but the stuff I've seen was mostly apologetics for anti-semitism in light of the fact that Jesus was Jewish. In those cases it's questionable whether or not religion was even being used as a justification. Of course there are more direct examples, but they don't seem like the foundation of the Nazi propaganda movement. And remember further that the Holocaust was based heavily on ideas of eugenics, yet no one (except crazy people) blames the theory of natural selection for it.
Post by: Graknorke on November 24, 2012, 08:48:17 pm
Post by: alexandertnt on November 24, 2012, 08:56:06 pm
And only religion causes these things?
Did I say that? I did not.
Only religion makes people be so sure in their beliefs that their curiosity dies? Only religion stifles dissent?
I Did not say that.
I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?
To be sure, religion does do these things. But they do not require religion. Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree, and I'm not convinced that's the case either.
Religion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.
Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.
Quote
Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.
"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.
If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.
I reckon people have a valid point with the violence thing. If the Bible were to be published now, unaffiliated with any established religion, it'd be pulled by the government immediately for inciting people to kill people for all of the "crimes" they commit.
There is some nasty stuff in the Bible (often overlooked by the more moderate's, since its apparently not possible for the unquestionable-and-True text to say or advocate things that would be considered abhorrent in todays society), But as for it being banned would depend on where in the world it is. America couldn't ban it, due to Free Speech. Australia abolished it's list of banned books some time ago and no longer censor books. Although they are the only two countries I know about in regards to the banning of books.
Post by: Graknorke on November 24, 2012, 09:04:11 pm
Those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head anyway, there's probably more.
I think that things like that (instructions to kill people) are not permitted, for reasons of not wanting people killing each other.
Post by: Strife26 on November 24, 2012, 09:19:04 pm
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 09:30:55 pm
I Did not say that.Because my quote, which you were responding to, was "Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion." Which is to say, that any harm religion has caused could have been caused by something else. Which is to say that without religion these things would still exist. That was my only point, nothing more, and if you are not arguing against that I have to wonder what you are arguing against.
I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?
Quote
Religion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.I... I'm not even sure what your point in this is. I am not arguing that the word religion is innocent (of course it is, words are always innocent). I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.
Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.
Quote
"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.
If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.
You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.
Post by: Graknorke on November 24, 2012, 09:59:16 pm
Well yeah, censorship's an innately bad thing for various reasons. Now, if you wanted to make a claim that any number of followers of the book actually tried to kill women who had sex outside of marriage, then you'd almost have a leg to stand on. But in the world we live in? Where it's an accepted fact that killing people's bad?Here's the legal thing I'm thinking of. Wikipedia because summary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_crime)
Basically, if you tell someone to commit a crime with the expectation of them doing it, you're breaking the law.
Post by: EveryZig on November 24, 2012, 10:41:23 pm
I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.Absolutism and blind faith can indeed exist and cause problems in any idea systems, but that does not mean that all idea systems are equal in terms of how accessible they are to absolutism and blind faith or how serious the resulting problems are likely to be. For example, I would suspect that a system of ideas that explicitly encourages faith would be more susceptible to blind faith than a system of ideas that considers faith a flaw.
The fact that religion is not the only cause of these problems or even the main cause of these problems does not mean that religion cannot be a contributing factor that increases the risk of these problems.
I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.USSR, PRC, etc were indeed worse after suppressing religion, but it is important not to ignore how religion was suppressed. Specifically, religion in those countries was supplanted by the rise of other ideas such as totalitarian communism which are themselves worse than the problems that might or might not have been caused by the displaced religions.
You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.
Those examples establish that there are some idea systems that are worse than religion, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether religion in general is good or bad overall.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 24, 2012, 10:53:39 pm
I Did not say that.Because my quote, which you were responding to, was "Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion." Which is to say, that any harm religion has caused could have been caused by something else. Which is to say that without religion these things would still exist. That was my only point, nothing more, and if you are not arguing against that I have to wonder what you are arguing against.
I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?
What I was showing was that religion can lead to the ability for one to do bad things that an absence of religion may prevent. Religion does not have a monopoly on this. I do see what you meant now and of course it is true, religion has done nothing that non-religion could not.
QuoteReligion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.I... I'm not even sure what your point in this is. I am not arguing that the word religion is innocent (of course it is, words are always innocent). I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.
Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.
I was attempting to show that religion is based on blind fath and absolutism. "Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree" Wheras I believe that religion is a term for innate qualities of man, and that is is not at all innocent of these things. I was possibly rambling a bit though.
Quote"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.
If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.
You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.
I believe that in the actual absence of religion, people would indeed cut back (but of course not eliminate) on their killing, considering that killings have been attributed for religious reasons. If someone were to invent a new religion in the absence of religion then there would no longer be an absence of religion. But I do not think humanity will abandon religion, only reduce it's significance as the world becomes clearer through proven, testable means.
Using those countries as examples is not really useful. These the totalitarian government and poor living conditions. Most countries with actual freedom of religion have high living standards, a functional rule-of-law, and a relatively uncorrupt government. countries tried to force the banning of religion, which is what caused most of the problems (not the lack of religion, which they were not all that successful at). They were not more peaceful because of. Most countries that ban religion are often poor and corrupt and that is what leads to the non-religious violence seen there.
This is why I do not believe in banning religion, it would probably create worse problems, and would imply a power has too much control (often leading to corruption).
Religion has been historically and culturally significant, but not always for the right reasons. If religion has been a negative force on humanity, not condemning it just for its historical and cultural significance seems silly. Of course thats if it has been a negative force on humanity. If you believed that it was not a negative force, then I could understand why you would not want to condemn it.
<only very-loosely-not-really connected with above:>
Religion is inferior at determing what one should do in any given situation. It leads to more wrong decisions, or less effective decisions than reasoning would. In a hypothetical non-religious society versus a religion society with similar freedoms (non-religious/religious due to choice) and living conditions, I believe that the non-religious society would work better. One possible scenario: In a drought, one group might desalinate salt water and use it to water their crops, the other may pray for rain. It is clear which one would be more effective.
I also think that if humanity were to abandon religion, it would also require the abandoning of the emotions/fears that lead to religion, if one goes the other goes. Since most of what causes religion is not a positive trait (fear of the unknown, blind faith etc) then it would seem fairly likely that crimes would reduce since it is these traits that are often responsible for bad things.
Post by: alway on November 24, 2012, 10:54:16 pm
On this topic, as there is a LOT of bullshit out there (people do love a good argument from authority fallacy, even if they have to invent one themselves; I've even seen him called a Christian for such purposes):Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".
I can't remember where I read/heard that though.Quote from: Albert EinsteinMy position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that Albert Einstein was an agnostic, given that the quote you gave is vauge and incomplete plus sounds alot like it could have been taken out of place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God_and_the_afterlife
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MaximumZero on November 24, 2012, 11:13:54 pm
For intents and purposes of a religion-less world, it may be more useful to look at data from places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. They are countries with very low quantities of religious people, and no laws against religion. It's a way to kind of view the natural decline of religion amongst a normal populace.
Post by: Micro102 on November 24, 2012, 11:22:09 pm
O well.
I think a lot more people are atheists then you would think. People who still go to church and play "insert religion here" with their "insert same religion here" family and friends. And then the numbers of people registered as Christians. I don't know if there are similar cases with other religions, but the Vatican had denied requests to remove people from their list of "members". There is also a clergyman project that works to help clergymen who lost their faith get situated financially after spending their entire life preaching.
Post by: MaximumZero on November 24, 2012, 11:30:57 pm
Post by: fqllve on November 24, 2012, 11:36:34 pm
Absolutism and blind faith can indeed exist and cause problems in any idea systems, but that does not mean that all idea systems are equal in terms of how accessible they are to absolutism and blind faith or how serious the resulting problems are likely to be. For example, I would suspect that a system of ideas that explicitly encourages faith would be more susceptible to blind faith than a system of ideas that considers faith a flaw.Of course, but if we are measuring an idea or belief system's capacity to fall prey to dangerous thinking, then yes religion is particularly susceptible to blind faith, in fact of all systems of thought it is probably the most susceptible to that, but likewise every system of thought has its own vices that can be twisted and expanded to the magnitudes that religion is. Particularly culture has the ability to cause damage in most of the same ways that religion does, even absent religious differences. Rationality, and you won't hear me often speak poorly of this, is particularly prone to the devaluing of human life on the small scale. Every system of thought has its weaknesses that can be exploited to cause great harm.
The fact that religion is not the only cause of these problems or even the main cause of these problems does not mean that religion cannot be a contributing factor that increases the risk of these problems.
I believe that in the actual absence of religion, people would indeed cut back (but of course not eliminate) on their killing, considering that killings have been attributed for religious reasons. If someone were to invent a new religion in the absence of religion then there would no longer be an absence of religion. But I do not think humanity will abandon religion, only reduce it's significance as the world becomes clearer through proven, testable means.I should have been more clear, but I was only referring to citizen crime rates. The PRC in particular has a relatively high standard of living (in the cities) but crime there seems to be going on undisturbed. It's not the best data source, but it's the closet we have to "people are no longer allowed to use religion to justify their crimes, are there fewer crimes?"
Using those countries as examples is not really useful. These the totalitarian government and poor living conditions. Most countries with actual freedom of religion have high living standards, a functional rule-of-law, and a relatively uncorrupt government. countries tried to force the banning of religion, which is what caused most of the problems (not the lack of religion, which they were not all that successful at). They were not more peaceful because of. Most countries that ban religion are often poor and corrupt and that is what leads to the non-religious violence seen there.
I wouldn't even say it's the lack of religion that caused problems, but rather any regime that attempts to suppress thought is likely going to be bad news.
Remember though, that the causes of human behavior are complex. In many of the cases where religion is used to justify a crime I don't think taking religion from the mix would do much, because you usually have an unstable set of circumstances already. There are some almost purely religiously motivated crimes, though, like anti-abortion terrorism, however in the majority of cases I think religion is just one factor and maybe not even a necessary one.
Quote
Religion has been historically and culturally significant, but not always for the right reasons. If religion has been a negative force on humanity, not condemning it just for its historical and cultural significance seems silly. Of course thats if it has been a negative force on humanity. If you believed that it was not a negative force, then I could understand why you would not want to condemn it.I don't believe it's a negative force. I believe it, like most things, is a neutral force. I believe it is a system of thought, and like all systems of thought it is a tool, and like all tools it can be a force for good or bad. It is not a particularly useful tool for describing the physical universe, and it isn't a tool that I've ever found need for, but that alone doesn't put me in any position to say whether a person should use it or not.
RE: The argument about banning religion:That's a good point, however I'll point out that those are flawed too, because they're countries with low population densities and social programs (particularly Norway) that encourage lower crime rates. Still better than what I suggested, though.
For intents and purposes of a religion-less world, it may be more useful to look at data from places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. They are countries with very low quantities of religious people, and no laws against religion. It's a way to kind of view the natural decline of religion amongst a normal populace.
It seems I've been ignored >:(Not by me at least.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 24, 2012, 11:42:05 pm
Don't forget about all the people who were registered into a religion without their consent or knowledge. According to the Mormons, Hitler really fucking hated Mormons.Notably: They're SUPPOSED to get permission from surviving descendants before doing that.
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 02:58:35 am
Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that you're saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.
I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Hitler was particularly religious, but if you've got any citations I'd be interested in them. However, in all the propaganda I've seen religious-themed stuff has been the minority. Now that might be a trick of historical revisionism, but the stuff I've seen was mostly apologetics for anti-semitism in light of the fact that Jesus was Jewish. In those cases it's questionable whether or not religion was even being used as a justification. Of course there are more direct examples, but they don't seem like the foundation of the Nazi propaganda movement. And remember further that the Holocaust was based heavily on ideas of eugenics, yet no one (except crazy people) blames the theory of natural selection for it.
Also, (many) Hitler quotes from his written work, Mein Kampf
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm (http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm) took me 1 google search to find.
Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 04:26:40 am
Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that your saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.
No, I'm saying that it would more or less remain the same. Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used. We already gave examples of all the things that could be held responsible, but you seem willing to ignore them for the sake of your own argument.
Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.Where do you get that from?
Also, I'm not trying to prove that Hitler wasn't religious, I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions. All in all, antisemitism was a thing that lived very strongly in certain European countries from the 15the century, due to the fact that their main profession was banking (Which is not a popular thing) as wel as some other reasons. Religion is a thing that is shaped by a society. The Jews were not mainly targetted because they had a different religion (otherwise Hitler would have targetted Catholics as wel), but because they were isolated in society, and made an easy scapegoat(It didn't help that the envoy who signed the german surrender in WOI was a Jew). It's unlikely that whitout scapegoating the Jews, he would have gotten away.
Hence we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 04:45:28 am
Odd, I don't remember ever having part of the conversation with you :-\ Whatever.Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that your saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.
No, I'm saying that it would more or less remain the same. Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used. We already gave examples of all the things that could be held responsible, but you seem willing to ignore them for the sake of your own argument.Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.Where do you get that from?
Also, I'm not trying to prove that Hitler wasn't religious, I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions. All in all, antisemitism was a thing that lived very strongly in certain European countries from the 15the century, due to the fact that their main profession was banking (Which is not a popular thing) as wel as some other reasons. Religion is a thing that is shaped by a society. The Jews were not mainly targetted because they had a different religion (otherwise Hitler would have targetted Catholics as wel), but because they were isolated in society, and made an easy scapegoat(It didn't help that the envoy who signed the german surrender in WOI was a Jew). It's unlikely that whitout scapegoating the Jews, he would have gotten away.
Hence we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.
How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in?
As for Hitler...
1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.
2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?
3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion?
I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 04:55:47 am
How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in? I've stated a whole lot of sensible motives. Religion is often molded by the society it's founded in, so you need to look for the problems there, not with the religion. What kind of conspiracy world are you living in that you believe that there's a giant organised system causing evil on large scales, while being supported by large parts of the population and justifying it's actions by stating it's doing just the reverse of what you're accusing it of.
As for Hitler...
1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.Not anymore than that they believed they were the master race, and that the Jews were bad(And not because their religion said so.).
2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?Because he was a Lutheran Christian. They have radically different visions on certain parts, but there was no real animousity at that point in time. He did target mormons for example, as well as several other minorities. Not because the religion said him to do so, but because they were easy targets.
3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion? Do you really need to ask that question? If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.
I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.Trust me, I have that feeling a lot around here.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 25, 2012, 05:43:17 am
Quote
we see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.
What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.
Quote
If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.
And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becomming more irrelevant to society.
Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.
Quote
Because religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.
Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.
Quote
I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.
Quote from: Hitler
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 06:12:26 am
Not always so certain of that. Often you find an underlying reason for these. However, if we look at the Islamitic Republic of Iran, we find that fundamentalism there is not as strong as it seems. Stem cell research is encouraged, abortus is permitted as well as the cloning of animals. The society is far from perfect, with lots of antiwestern feelings, and repression of certain minorities, but this is easily explained if you look at recent history(First the west sponsored a dictator, and when the revolution came, they sponsored Saddam Husein in his attack against the Iranian state). But over the last few years we've seen general improvements in religious freedom, as well as other things. (Despite being third on the list of countries persecuting Christians, the Christian minority is quite well of, provided they don't try to voice their beliefs.)Quotewe see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.
There are many other countries for which the same thing can be said.
And yeah, problems between religions can cause fundamentalism. Got a wording issue there.
QuoteIf people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becoming more irrelevant to society.
Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.*
See the above example. There are also many examples of countries during history where you got near 100% religion of one sort and where that sort of things didn't happen.
It's quite easy to feel threatened or repressed if you get people saying your beliefs are irrational, false and should be forbidden. While these form only a minority, it's often enough to give a hostile impression.
*Then were does religion come from? It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread. Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.
Bleh, are you unimaginative. There are more than enough reasons for suicide bombins. Nationalism is a strong one, for example. Several people are willing to give up their life for their ideals, for freedom. See the entire Israel-Palestinian problem. The Palestinians don't want to bomb the Jews(and by extension their supporters in other, western countries) because of their religion, but because they took their land.QuoteBecause religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.
((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) argument))QuoteI'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.Quote from: HitlerHence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.
Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.
Post by: alway on November 25, 2012, 06:38:58 am
Very much this. Stop with the pointless Argument From Authority and the converse Guilt By Associate fallacies. A bunch of people in this thread are doing it, and it just serves to derail any actual discussion by quibbling about whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Einstein, Newton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, wore striped pajamas or polka-dot pajamas. There are four lights, regardless of how many either Hitler or Einstein say there are. Hitler saying there are 4 lights does not mean there are 5 lights; Einstein saying there are 5 lights does not mean there are 5 lights. The opinions of men, regardless of whether you hold them in ill favor or good, have no sway over that which is true. Arguing that there cannot possibly be 4 lights because Hitler says there are 4 lights is no less absurd than that which is being done.((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) argument))QuoteI'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.Quote from: HitlerHence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 25, 2012, 07:08:22 am
Not always so certain of that. Often you find an underlying reason for these. However, if we look at the Islamitic Republic of Iran, we find that fundamentalism there is not as strong as it seems. Stem cell research is encouraged, abortus is permitted as well as the cloning of animals. The society is far from perfect, with lots of antiwestern feelings, and repression of certain minorities, but this is easily explained if you look at recent history(First the west sponsored a dictator, and when the revolution came, they sponsored Saddam Husein in his attack against the Iranian state). But over the last few years we've seen general improvements in religious freedom, as well as other things. (Despite being third on the list of countries persecuting Christians, the Christian minority is quite well of, provided they don't try to voice their beliefs.)Quotewe see an increase in fundamentalism these days, due to problems between religions and atheisms, as well as some other reasons.What? One only has to look at the least religious countries, and the most religous countries to see that the most "fundamentalist" stuff takes part in these very religious countries. Also why not between specific religions (That is, is the increase due to the change in ratio between atheists and religious people, or just the change in various religious distribution)? Religion A knows that both Religion B and Atheists are equally wrong, likewise for Religion B.
Iran may not be that bad, but it is pretty bad. The religious freedoms given is an example of defundamentalising , as well as something that would allow the split between different religions to grow, which will be more likely to result in more reductions in fundamentalism (or else no country could relax any laws that are the result of fundamentalism and of which the relaxing of would encourage the growth of minority beliefs because it would just cause fundamentalism to grow again and go back to square one)
There are some examples, but they are in the minority. Understandably, if anyone said someone's beliefs should be forbidden, then they may react negatively. I still don't see how an increase in the split between two beliefs/lack-of-beliefs will lead to fundamentalism, or at least in any influencial form.QuoteIf people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.And if you leave a hypothetical country in the state of near 100% religion, they start creating fundamentalist laws unopposed because they just know they are correct. The shrinking group may become more fundamentalist, but since they are shrinking they are also becoming more irrelevant to society.
Plus that is if these people are feeling threatened or repressed. In the case that the secularization of society is completely voluntary and freedom of religion genuinely remains, any of these feelings are irrational and are possibly the result of the religion itself. Since by definition they wouldn't be reached through rational thought.*
See the above example. There are also many examples of countries during history where you got near 100% religion of one sort and where that sort of things didn't happen.
It's quite easy to feel threatened or repressed if you get people saying your beliefs are irrational, false and should be forbidden. While these form only a minority, it's often enough to give a hostile impression.
Quote
It seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespread
How so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.
Quote
Also, what definition says that religion is not rational.
It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.
Bleh, are you unimaginative. There are more than enough reasons for suicide bombins. Nationalism is a strong one, for example. Several people are willing to give up their life for their ideals, for freedom. See the entire Israel-Palestinian problem. The Palestinians don't want to bomb the Jews(and by extension their supporters in other, western countries) because of their religion, but because they took their land.QuoteBecause religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used.Religion is not always the cause, but it can be more than an excuse. What non-religeous reason would anyone have to do a suicide bombing, for example? There is no possible real-world benefit to this I can think of.
How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.
((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) argument))QuoteI'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.Quote from: HitlerHence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.
Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.
Quote
A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself.
Never did I say that religion is bad due to Hitler in any way. Never did I use this as an argument to prove religion is bad. The discussion was about Hitler/Nazi's, "I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions." and I was trying to demonstrate the possibility that it may have been more than a justification, never that this proves that religion is bad because of it. How else am I supposed to put this forth this as an argument without mentioning Hitler? Likewise with the Evolution comparison. Hitler may have used some understanding of evolution to do these things, along with religion, but that does not imply that these things are bad, nor did I ever say that. Religion's good/bad status is not affected by Hitler.
The quote I gave was to show a possible counterpoint, not to imply that religion is bad because Hitler liked it.
This is fallacious use of a fallacy.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 07:24:06 am
There are some examples, but they are in the minority. Understandably, if anyone said someone's beliefs should be forbidden, then they may react negatively. I still don't see how an increase in the split between two beliefs/lack-of-beliefs will lead to fundamentalism, or at least in any influencial form.It's not the split that cause the fundamentalization, but anonimousity between 2 factions. Even if these only form minorities on both sides, things can escalate.
Such as...QuoteIt seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespreadHow so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.
You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method. Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.QuoteAlso, what definition says that religion is not rational.It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.
How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.
In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.
The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.((The last argument is a Hitler ate sugar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar) argument))QuoteI'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions.Quote from: HitlerHence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.While religion was most likely not the main factor (Hitler's religious view likely only complimented the rest of his "reasons"), I have not been able to find anything that suggests that it did not contribute in some form. At the very least, they (the Nazi party) often utilized a common fault with many religions, the idea that something or someone can be beyond question.
Yes. The main reason was the growing nationalism, and the fact that Germany was completely screwded over by the other nations after WWI. Hitler also used eugenestics and social darwinism as justifications, but you don't here me saying that the Evolution theory is bad because of that.QuoteA logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself.
Never did I say that religion is bad due to Hitler in any way. Never did I use this as an argument to prove religion is bad. The discussion was about Hitler/Nazi's, "I'm trying to prove that his religion was merely used as a justification for his actions." and I was trying to demonstrate the possibility that it may have been more than a justification, never that this proves that religion is bad because of it. How else am I supposed to put this forth this as an argument without mentioning Hitler? Likewise with the Evolution comparison. Hitler may have used some understanding of evolution to do these things, along with religion, but that does not imply that these things are bad, nor did I ever say that. Religion's good/bad status is not affected by Hitler.
The quote I gave was to show a possible counterpoint, not to imply that religion is bad because Hitler liked it.
This is fallacious use of a fallacy.
Also, see the bolded part. Nazi party used dogma's, The church uses dogma's, hence, Church caused holocaust. Though you should be able to question your beliefs, and actually, in many situations you can.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 25, 2012, 08:36:28 am
Quote
It's not the split that cause the fundamentalization, but anonimousity between 2 factions. Even if these only form minorities on both sides, things can escalate.
I couldn't find a definition for "anonimousity" when I put it in google (Of course, this does not imply the validity/invalidity of any argument, I just literally couldn't find a definition).
Just for clarity, I assumed that the argument is in regards to the changing sizes of each group. Now I reread, it could have meant changing beliefs or something else. I still don't see how it would necessarily cause an increase in fundamentalism though.
Quote
Such as...QuoteIt seems unlikely that something that doesn't make any sense could become so widespreadHow so? Just look at the zany and clearly ridiculous beliefs of the past that became so widespread. People are hardly rational beings.
Perhaps I mistope "Doesn't make sence" with "is not correct". This would be my mistake.
Quote
You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method. Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.QuoteAlso, what definition says that religion is not rational.It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.
My quick googling doesn't seem to reveal anything about Zeno's paradoxes which is actually rational. But my search was quick.
Okay, something being rational does not make it a science. My sleep-deprived-ness did not help here.
Quote
How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.
In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.
You had stated that "religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used" implying that religion is never the cause (otherwise it would be "not always", or "sometimes" etc). I do not need a correlation of any sorts, only one causality. (I may have taken this out of context - the quote trees have grown quite large since.)
Also, why are fundamentalists not representitive of a religion?
As to whether it is a significant cause is something else, and something my statement does not prove.
Quote
Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other
I am not entirely sure of the meaning of this though, especially in in regards to the questions "How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another?". A causation or correlation does not require a majority.
Quote
The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.
Oh, it was not directed at my argument. I Think the use of the word 'was' instead of 'is' probably would have made it clearer but fair enough. I was sort of wondering where Hitler had come from anyway.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 08:52:04 am
Quote
You seem to be confusing rational with scientifically proven, or the scientific method. Zeno's paradoxes are completely rational, but are still completely false and absurd.QuoteAlso, what definition says that religion is not rational.It is perhaps not a definition, but if religion was rational it would not be religion, it would be Science - if a religion was to question itself and accept the possibility that it may be false then it would no longer be a belief system, it would become founded instead on evidence.
My quick googling doesn't seem to reveal anything about Zeno's paradoxes which is actually rational. But my search was quick.
Okay, something being rational does not make it a science. My sleep-deprived-ness did not help here. Zeno's paradoxes are completely logical and rational. They're not irrational, but just wrong.
Quote
How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another? Especially given that religious based bombings seem to be quite common (in the sense that they make up alot of the suicide bombings), or at the very least more than zero.Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other. Nevertheless, we clearly see a trend that in most suicidal bombings there's at least a bit of nationalism, a resistance to an oppressor and stuff like that. Causality doesn't imply Correlation. (This counts for both things). If the majority of the bombings have nationalistic(not quite the right word for what I mean) reasons, and and smaller percentage of those also have possible religious reasons, it makes no sense to mark religion as the bad thing.
In any way, we're talking about fundamentalists, who are not representative of a religion, either way.
You had stated that "religion is not the cause of these things, but just an excuse used" implying that religion is never the cause (otherwise it would be "not always", or "sometimes" etc). I do not need a correlation of any sorts, only one causality. (I may have taken this out of context - the quote trees have grown quite large since.) You do need to prove a correlation. Otherwise, I could prove that party hats sometimes cause murder with the single argument that one time someone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.
Also, why are fundamentalists not representitive of a religion?Because they make up less than 5%(depending on sources) of the religious population.
As to whether it is a significant cause is something else, and something my statement does not prove.
Quote
Because the majority of religious people don't bomb each other
I am not entirely sure of the meaning of this though, especially in in regards to the questions "How can religion speficically not cause these things? Nationalism may be a reason, but what is stopping religion from being another?". A causation or correlation does not require a majority. You do need to prove a Correlation.
A notion that is probably correct is that a fundamentalist intrepretation can cause such things(and probably does). That doesn't say anything about the invalidity or evilness of the rest of religion, which is often implied in these arguments.
The point I'm trying to make is that religion isn't a bad thing on itself, but that it can be used as an excuse/motivation for bad things, this more so with more fundamentalist intrepretations than with others.
[/quote]
Post by: Leafsnail on November 25, 2012, 09:06:18 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 25, 2012, 09:08:58 am
How am I supposed to argue with red truth??Yeah, I know it's annoying, but it's much easier to write. I'll try not to do it in the future.
Post by: Starver on November 25, 2012, 12:19:34 pm
USSR, PRC, etc were indeed worse after suppressing religion, but it is important not to ignore how religion was suppressed. Specifically, religion in those countries was supplanted by the rise of other ideas such as totalitarian communism[...]
I'm not sure if this point will already have been made, but it's quite possible to describe totalitarian communism (and other creeds) as a replacement religion...
Post by: Starver on November 25, 2012, 12:30:36 pm
It seems I've been ignored >:(It's the speed of the thread. A number of things I've said have been ignored (even when timely and not already flooded with intermediate messages). Probably mostly because of people who haven't read my bits yet (who are writing when I'm in the intermediate message-flood that they haven't got through yet).
O well.
Sometimes I choose to believe that what I say is just so reasonable that nobody has any objection. ;) (However when I briefly brought up Spinoza, I notices someone, I forget who and possibly even you, noticing and adding to that.)
Give how you were (still are?) at hammer and tongs with one of the others, that might not be the same for you, but you never know. But that's the trouble with such asynchronously one might find in this thread. Mind you, I was always used in the past to conducting Usenet discussions. With threading and nested branches you end up with an interesting "everyone wants to reply to everyone" exponential explosion, at times, especially after The Eternal September came around on even previously chatty newsgroups. Probably 'nicer' to just have one chronology (per subject) with an obvious "things may have moved on" indicator.
Post by: Starver on November 25, 2012, 12:37:16 pm
Also possibly the modern equivalent of "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED", except using colours. ;)
Post by: fqllve on November 25, 2012, 12:44:14 pm
Saying that the amount of (lets use the term evil for all the bad stuff we were talking about) evil would stay the same if religion would disappear, would mean that you're saying that the amount of people who do not use medicine, who believe the world is going to end and thus kill their children (without the benefit of heaven), who become pedophiles, who are willing to give their lives for suicide bombing (without the promise of heaven), ect., would all increase without religion. I find that ridiculous.Ok, I see how you can come to the conclusion that it would have to increase, and of course that would be ridiculous but just because something doesn't decrease (or decrease in any significant or measurable way) when you get rid of religion does not mean there is something else inspiring more people to do these things, rather two things, that A) that most actions have a number of causes and even actions that are highly religiously motivated have other underlying factors so that dismissing them in the absence of religion is specious, and B) that killing in the exact ways that religion is most fond of do not have to rise for the total number of violent crimes to see little or no statistically significant change.
Quote
took me 1 google search to find.Oh come on, it sounds like you're chastising me here. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a link from the one who has made the statement and is therefore likely able to source it better that I would with half hour of searching on Google.
Quote
Again, even if he wasn't religious, and this was some big fraud, a type of religious scapegoat, the holocaust was carried out due to the fact that religion...God...was backing it.You say it as if it's unlikely to have been a fraud. Most of my information is based on remarks from Speer and quotes he attributed to Hitler, so it's no first hand source, but would it really be that surprising if Hitler was just using religion to manipulate people as he did many other things?
Also, the statement that the Holocaust was carried out because God was backing it is... a very simplistic distillation of an extraordinarily complex subject. No one thing could have caused atrocity on the level of the Holocaust and to couch it in such terms is to do a disservice to history. Look at Nazi statements about Poles and the Roma. Look at the treatment of Soviet POWs or political dissenters. I think the devastation of the Poles in particular shows that the Holocaust was about more than just religion.
The other guy implied that Religion was bad because Hitler liked it.Micro? I haven't seen him do any such thing. Rather the discussion was whether or not the Holocaust was primarily religiously motivated, and Hitler's personal beliefs, being one of the people largely responsible for this, are relevant.
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 01:13:58 pm
Yes you've stated a bunch of sensible reasons that people could commit horrible acts. So what? How does that automatically make it so religious based horrrible acts are not something that should be focused on? Or are you saying that these problems are already going to happen and religion just is tacked on? And yes religion is founded on the society it was created by. Hence the Bible was based off the culture of a bunch of pillaging and raping Jewish people. And now it is a book that people worship as the word of God. To deal with the problem of that society is to dismiss the Bible as not the word of God, as just an immoral book. And I agree with this, but do you really think that the current religions would stand if that happened? This is what I mean by getting rid of religion.How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in? I've stated a whole lot of sensible motives. Religion is often molded by the society it's founded in, so you need to look for the problems there, not with the religion. What kind of conspiracy world are you living in that you believe that there's a giant organised system causing evil on large scales, while being supported by large parts of the population and justifying it's actions by stating it's doing just the reverse of what you're accusing it of.
As for Hitler...
1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.Not anymore than that they believed they were the master race, and that the Jews were bad(And not because their religion said so.).
2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?Because he was a Lutheran Christian. They have radically different visions on certain parts, but there was no real animousity at that point in time. He did target mormons for example, as well as several other minorities. Not because the religion said him to do so, but because they were easy targets.
3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion? Do you really need to ask that question? If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.
I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.Trust me, I have that feeling a lot around here.
Yes, But hitler believing that there should be a master race is also a huge factor. But it doesn't excuse religion's role in this. What do you think would sway more people to allow mass murdering to occur? "God wishes this", or "this race is superior"?
Jews WERE targetted mainly because of religion. Hitler choose them and other weak targets. They were weak because they were discriminated against, because of their religion. And religion OS what made people turn the other cheek to the slaughter.
And fundementalism is not special to the struggle between atheists and theists. I don't even know why you brought that up.
EDIT: editing quotes on a phone is too time consuming, if you expecting a reply from me, it will have to wait.
Post by: EveryZig on November 25, 2012, 03:28:42 pm
I would say that being a convenient excuse for anything is itself a bad thing, as it gives bad ideas an easy route to authority with minimal examination. (Good ideas would have an easy time too, but as good ideas they would presumably withstand examination better and therefore be favored more by higher standards.)
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 03:33:49 pm
Ok, I see how you can come to the conclusion that it would have to increase, and of course that would be ridiculous but just because something doesn't decrease (or decrease in any significant or measurable way) when you get rid of religion does not mean there is something else inspiring more people to do these things, rather two things, that A) that most actions have a number of causes and even actions that are highly religiously motivated have other underlying factors so that dismissing them in the absence of religion is specious, and B) that killing in the exact ways that religion is most fond of do not have to rise for the total number of violent crimes to see little or no statistically significant change.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you rephrase it?
You say it as if it's unlikely to have been a fraud. Most of my information is based on remarks from Speer and quotes he attributed to Hitler, so it's no first hand source, but would it really be that surprising if Hitler was just using religion to manipulate people as he did many other things?
Also, the statement that the Holocaust was carried out because God was backing it is... a very simplistic distillation of an extraordinarily complex subject. No one thing could have caused atrocity on the level of the Holocaust and to couch it in such terms is to do a disservice to history. Look at Nazi statements about Poles and the Roma. Look at the treatment of Soviet POWs or political dissenters. I think the devastation of the Poles in particular shows that the Holocaust was about more than just religion.
Sorry if I came off that way. I feel it is more plausible that religion was not the main factor for Hitlers actions, but just a very strong tool to sway the masses to accept his actions. But I don't discount the possibility that he did this for religious reasons.
When I said God was backing it, I was showing the viewpoint that religious believers would have. No, one thing did not cause the holocaust, but without religion, I don't think it would have happened. Religion is a very strong force. You have a massive community who all share similar beliefs, and the major religions believe there is an all knowing, morally correct being watching over you. There is no large, heavily assimilated community connected to the idea of a superior race or anything like that. Maybe to the discrimination towards Jews at the time, but then how much of that was due to religion?
Micro? I haven't seen him do any such thing. Rather the discussion was whether or not the Holocaust was primarily religiously motivated, and Hitler's personal beliefs, being one of the people largely responsible for this, are relevant.While Hitler's personal beliefs would be important, I have no way of knowing what they were, so lets stick with religion regarding the population.
Some people here seem to be arguing that religion is not itself bad, but is merely a convenient excuse for anything.So true, but from what I can reading, they are also arguing that it's not just an excuse, but that if it didn't exist, the same amount of problems would exist under a different excuse. I hope I'm wrong in reading that because it makes no sense. Christians going to heaven is a strong factor regarding death, but you can't really replicate that without religion.
I would say that being a convenient excuse for anything is itself a bad thing, as it gives bad ideas an easy route to authority with minimal examination. (Good ideas would have an easy time too, but as good ideas they would presumably withstand examination better and therefore be favored more by higher standards.)
Post by: fqllve on November 25, 2012, 05:27:47 pm
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you rephrase it?Ok.
Let's take my example for a highly religiously motivated action, anti-abortion terrorism. Now the primary cause of this is clearly religious, but if you examine actual cases of it the situation becomes far more complex. First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief. Which is why some of the most heinous acts of anti-abortion terrorism could be performed by someone who "prefer(s) Nietzche to the Bible." (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-rudolph-cover-partone_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) Further, the belief that abortion is condemned by God does not seem sufficient to motivate people to commit such crimes, rather there seem to be political motivators as well and people who commit these acts are often disaffected from society and bitter exhibiting antisocial tendencies and in some cases psychosis. Most of these individuals are troubled, such as Scott Philip Roeder who came to religion through his anti-government sentiments and not the other way around.
Which is to say, that the causes of such actions are so complex that to suggest that even the majority of them would not have happened if religion was not in the picture is to oversimplify. In most cases we have absolutely no way of knowing, but it's worth pointing out that the majority of those cases were property crimes, however in many of the most severe cases it seems likely that the person was unstable already, whether or not they were so unstable as to commit their crimes is also, however, impossible to say.
As for the second point, it has nothing to do with excuses and everything to do with human nature. In terms of governmental atrocities? I do not think they would be lessened at all because nationalism will still exist, and nationalism has been linked with nearly every case of governmental religious violence I can think of and has shown itself just as capable of travesty as religion is on it's own. In terms of terrorist acts, there would likely be some dropoff, but perhaps not as much as you'd expect. Because, as above, even without religion many of the factors involved in such acts will remain, and those factors which are religious are often not directly religious (as in an explicit consequence of religious belief, in general, not of any particular religious beliefs) or inherently religious (as in requiring religion to exist). The closest to these I can think of that is inherently religious is belief in an afterlife, and it is still possible without religion, at least under my definition of religion (which is that supernatural beliefs are not inherently religious). Which means that in absence of explicitly religious factors the factors that were most important to the terrorist actions would remain the same. I do not think there would be any change in violent or non-violent civilian crime.
Quote
Sorry if I came off that way. I feel it is more plausible that religion was not the main factor for Hitlers actions, but just a very strong tool to sway the masses to accept his actions. But I don't discount the possibility that he did this for religious reasons.How do you mean due to religion? Because in the strictest sense that would mean "related to the religious beliefs of the Jews or the perpetrators of the crimes against them" in which case I'd say that antisemitism has historically had little to do with religious beliefs, with one particularly prominent exception. To support that, just look at antisemitism during the Black Death, clearly not religiously motivated at all. The only case where I can think of antisemitism being explicitly linked to religious belief is the one where Christians blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. As far as I'm aware that hasn't really manifested as a motivator for wide scale antisemitic violence, but I could easily be wrong on that score.
When I said God was backing it, I was showing the viewpoint that religious believers would have. No, one thing did not cause the holocaust, but without religion, I don't think it would have happened. Religion is a very strong force. You have a massive community who all share similar beliefs, and the major religions believe there is an all knowing, morally correct being watching over you. There is no large, heavily assimilated community connected to the idea of a superior race or anything like that. Maybe to the discrimination towards Jews at the time, but then how much of that was due to religion?
Also, you're wrong about there not being an assimilated community based on racial superiority. In fact there are plenty of those (though they are not popular on the scale that religion is) and further nationalism (which is popular on the scale religion is), a belief system very similar to the idea of racial superiority, also has such groups. It's sad, but I don't think the Nazis even needed to use religious propaganda to get people on their side, certainly they attracted some people they otherwise might not have, but I think it would have been sufficient without that. It's also worth pointing out that in the late thirties Pope Pius explicitly denounced Nazi racist ideology and acceptance of Nazism even among German clergy was not universal. If the Pope tells you one thing and the Archbishop another people are forced to conclude on their own, and I don't think any factors that would have made them conclude on the side of antisemitism were related to religion. They were related to seeing wealthy Jews, they were related to cultural tensions, they look different, talk different, act different, and they were related to the astonishing breadth of Nazi antisemitism which took myriad forms through just as many justifications.
Quote
While Hitler's personal beliefs would be important, I have no way of knowing what they were, so lets stick with religion regarding the population.That's fine, I was just pointing out he was completely misrepresenting your argument.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 25, 2012, 07:00:18 pm
Quote
Someone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.
The is not representitive of my argument, since I am finding an example where religion was the cause, not just that someone doing the crime was religious (someome murdered someome because of the party hat, not just happened to be wearing it. If someome murdered directly due to wearing a party hat, then wearing a party hat would sometimes cause murder).
I am not trying to show that religion is bad overall, or even that there is a correlation between religion and bad things.
Besides,
Quote from: Wikipedia(I know, Wikipedia, but there are sources)
Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing has identified both religious and sociopolitical motivations. Those who cite religious factors as an important influence note that religion provides the framework because the bombers believe they are acting in the name of Islam and will be rewarded as martyrs.
I also can not find any information on Causation !=> Correlation on the internet (all the results are the other way around, unsuprisingly.). I would be literally interested in a link on an explanation, since with respect to Correlation !=> Causation (which we know is right, and is the only think I have to go on) (A !=> B) !=> (B !=> A).
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 10:00:44 pm
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you rephrase it?Ok.
Let's take my example for a highly religiously motivated action, anti-abortion terrorism. Now the primary cause of this is clearly religious, but if you examine actual cases of it the situation becomes far more complex. First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief. Which is why some of the most heinous acts of anti-abortion terrorism could be performed by someone who "prefer(s) Nietzche to the Bible." (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-rudolph-cover-partone_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) Further, the belief that abortion is condemned by God does not seem sufficient to motivate people to commit such crimes, rather there seem to be political motivators as well and people who commit these acts are often disaffected from society and bitter exhibiting antisocial tendencies and in some cases psychosis. Most of these individuals are troubled, such as Scott Philip Roeder who came to religion through his anti-government sentiments and not the other way around.
Which is to say, that the causes of such actions are so complex that to suggest that even the majority of them would not have happened if religion was not in the picture is to oversimplify. In most cases we have absolutely no way of knowing, but it's worth pointing out that the majority of those cases were property crimes, however in many of the most severe cases it seems likely that the person was unstable already, whether or not they were so unstable as to commit their crimes is also, however, impossible to say.
As for the second point, it has nothing to do with excuses and everything to do with human nature. In terms of governmental atrocities? I do not think they would be lessened at all because nationalism will still exist, and nationalism has been linked with nearly every case of governmental religious violence I can think of and has shown itself just as capable of travesty as religion is on it's own. In terms of terrorist acts, there would likely be some dropoff, but perhaps not as much as you'd expect. Because, as above, even without religion many of the factors involved in such acts will remain, and those factors which are religious are often not directly religious (as in an explicit consequence of religious belief, in general, not of any particular religious beliefs) or inherently religious (as in requiring religion to exist). The closest to these I can think of that is inherently religious is belief in an afterlife, and it is still possible without religion, at least under my definition of religion (which is that supernatural beliefs are not inherently religious). Which means that in absence of explicitly religious factors the factors that were most important to the terrorist actions would remain the same. I do not think there would be any change in violent or non-violent civilian crime.
So, your saying that religious ideas have no effect on the actions of people? What if I flipped that around? Any positive actions made under the name of religion would not change if religion disappeared. Doesn't that mean that there is no point to religion? But then how do you deal with the religiously based laws and other damages that religion has caused, without removing or severely weakening religion?
QuoteSorry if I came off that way. I feel it is more plausible that religion was not the main factor for Hitlers actions, but just a very strong tool to sway the masses to accept his actions. But I don't discount the possibility that he did this for religious reasons.How do you mean due to religion? Because in the strictest sense that would mean "related to the religious beliefs of the Jews or the perpetrators of the crimes against them" in which case I'd say that antisemitism has historically had little to do with religious beliefs, with one particularly prominent exception. To support that, just look at antisemitism during the Black Death, clearly not religiously motivated at all. The only case where I can think of antisemitism being explicitly linked to religious belief is the one where Christians blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. As far as I'm aware that hasn't really manifested as a motivator for wide scale antisemitic violence, but I could easily be wrong on that score.
When I said God was backing it, I was showing the viewpoint that religious believers would have. No, one thing did not cause the holocaust, but without religion, I don't think it would have happened. Religion is a very strong force. You have a massive community who all share similar beliefs, and the major religions believe there is an all knowing, morally correct being watching over you. There is no large, heavily assimilated community connected to the idea of a superior race or anything like that. Maybe to the discrimination towards Jews at the time, but then how much of that was due to religion?
You can use that definition if you want to. I'm saying that I don't know at what level religion had and affect on the discrimination towards Jews, but if there was religious influence, then I see no greater force behind the holocaust then religion. Even if there was no religious influence, I am still convinced that without religion it all never would of happened.
Also, you're wrong about there not being an assimilated community based on racial superiority. In fact there are plenty of those (though they are not popular on the scale that religion is) and further nationalism (which is popular on the scale religion is), a belief system very similar to the idea of racial superiority, also has such groups. It's sad, but I don't think the Nazis even needed to use religious propaganda to get people on their side, certainly they attracted some people they otherwise might not have, but I think it would have been sufficient without that. It's also worth pointing out that in the late thirties Pope Pius explicitly denounced Nazi racist ideology and acceptance of Nazism even among German clergy was not universal. If the Pope tells you one thing and the Archbishop another people are forced to conclude on their own, and I don't think any factors that would have made them conclude on the side of antisemitism were related to religion. They were related to seeing wealthy Jews, they were related to cultural tensions, they look different, talk different, act different, and they were related to the astonishing breadth of Nazi antisemitism which took myriad forms through just as many justifications.That's why i said heavily integrated. I can't find any racial superiority group that even came close to the christian population.
As for Pope Pius, did he continue to denounce the Nazi policy while WW2 was going on?
Post by: fqllve on November 25, 2012, 10:53:17 pm
What if I flipped that around? Any positive actions made under the name of religion would not change if religion disappeared. Doesn't that mean that there is no point to religion? But then how do you deal with the religiously based laws and other damages that religion has caused, without removing or severely weakening religion?
What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.Well, if you did that I'd have to agree with you. I think human behavior shaped religion, not the other way around. By which I don't mean that religion hasn't been used to control human behavior, but it didn't create anything that wasn't already there, including the good things.
As for removing religion's power, well yeah I think that religion should be as far removed from politics as possible. Politics is a mess and we don't need to complicate it. How easy or possible that is is another story.
Quote
You can use that definition if you want to. I'm saying that I don't know at what level religion had and affect on the discrimination towards Jews, but if there was religious influence, then I see no greater force behind the holocaust then religion. Even if there was no religious influence, I am still convinced that without religion it all never would of happened.We'll have to disagree there then, because I think eugenics and cultural bigotry were the primary motivating factors. In fact I don't think the Holocaust could have happened without the idea of eugenics.
Quote
That's why i said heavily integrated. I can't find any racial superiority group that even came close to the christian population.No. Because he died. His successor, Pius the XII's, actions during WW2 and the Holocaust are controversial and probably best not to get into. Let's just leave it at he clearly wasn't supportive of the Nazis or their racism, but he didn't openly censure them, much to everyone's dismay.
As for Pope Pius, did he continue to denounce the Nazi policy while WW2 was going on?
And I know that's why you said that, that's why I brought up nationalism. Especially since Nazism itself was a powerful and integrated social structure for promoting nationalism.
Post by: Descan on November 25, 2012, 11:14:31 pm
... Uh, does that make sense?
Post by: Micro102 on November 25, 2012, 11:57:08 pm
I didn't really think Bay12 would be able to dissect how the Holocaust stated. :P
Post by: Descan on November 26, 2012, 12:03:00 am
And would there be a stigma against them if there was no such thing as Islam or Christianity? :P
Post by: Pnx on November 26, 2012, 01:46:22 am
Yeah, except that you don't have to be a Jew that believes in god. You can be a cultural Jew.I can give you a pretty thorough dissection actually, although the full explanation is pretty damn lengthy. The simpler version is that it essentially starts with the Catholic church's policies during the middle ages which forbade Usury (which at the time they defined as giving or taking loans with interest) and said that they people should hate on people who had lots of money and didn't give it to them. Judaism didn't have such restrictions on money lending, there is this thing in the Torah which essentially says they can't lend with interest to people who can't afford to pay the interest, but that's a little beside the point and generally didn't stop them becoming money lenders. Since most people really need credit to start or expand a business, if you were Jewish you often had a distinct advantage over someone who was being a play-by-the-church-rules Catholic. Later the Catholic church lifted the restriction on lending with interest, and said that it was only if you lended with excessive interest, but by then modern bank loans were becoming a big thing, and their policies had sort of led to Jewish people doing really well at it.
I didn't really think Bay12 would be able to dissect how the Holocaust stated. :P
Other stuff that really helped Jewish people prosper as businessmen was the strong community, which was defined by a mentality of "We Jews must stick together", where Jewish people would tend to do well by each other, offer each other better deals, help each other out when things were going badly, that sort of stuff. They did this mainly because Christians hated them so much, and sticking together was how they'd survived. There was also Jewish law, in particular the thing where Rabbi's act as notaries for business deals. If you had a deal you wanted to make, you could bring it before the Rabbi who would bear witness to the deal and it's terms, which made it much easier for Jewish people to trust a contract amongst each other, because if someone tried to go back on a deal, the Rabbi would be all like, "Joshua, you promised before god you'd give him three baskets a week!"
So yeah, all of this lead to Jewish people in Germany during the depression doing a hell of a lot better than most regular Germans. When the markets collapsed and most German businessmen went broke, the Jewish businessmen used investments made in other countries, or asked family members from other countries to back them up, and stayed in business. They then tended to prefer hiring Jewish people over regular Germans, and would often pay them good wages, because hey, there's no way you're letting your cousin's wife's brother live in the gutter, right?
Then this one douchebag with a comb-over and a Charlie Chaplain style moustache came along and took control of the country. He had a bunch of grievances against Jewish people, he claimed that he had been discriminated against in terms of employment, and refused entry into an art school by Jews, these may or may not have been legitimate grievances, anyway, he took control and... well I'm sure you know the rest of the story.
And yes, that's my simpler explanation.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 26, 2012, 06:58:03 am
Post by: Starver on November 26, 2012, 09:33:10 am
(And there was anti-Semitic, or at least Jew-intolerance, here in the UK as well. For reasons already given, Jews have sometimes more than stuck out in society and been seen to be getting the best deal when there's generally hard times going round, whether deliberately or otherwise (whether involved in these apparently closed-shop practices or otherwise!). They're not the only peoples. "Pakis"[1] famously become the small-shopkeepers of the nation. Yada yada Work Ethic, yada yada (extended) Family Business, yada yada Open All Hours (and on Sundays, when and where the law allowed). Newsagents, off-licences, you name it. That's the stereotype, at least, and some less than enlightened 'native' Anglos resented this (some still do, I imagine).)
Erm, anyway. I wasn't really going to go into this line of discussion, but skip to the prejudice against the Irish as well. And even within mainland Britain (or even England, like northerners going to London and Londoners going north) those who stand out (as do a lot of people apparently "not natively of this area" for some reason or other) and do well don't tend to get a good reception,
'Traveller' types (maybe Romany, maybe not) are pretty perpetually "not from around here" (given they're not technically permanently from anywhere). There's perhaps more prejudice from their (perceived) lower capability of success, and taking on the "untouchable" jobs (manual work, scrap dealing) and times where some dodgy or downright illegal activities are ascribed to them (correctly or otherwise), but there's a lot of stereotypes that in all of which, not all of which are applicable to all those of a given type (to unknowable degrees). But seizing upon these stereotypes one can (consciously or unconsciously) build up a prejudice for oneself or for others you're trying to control.
I've no doubt The Godwinated One had some grievances (perceived, at least, maybe no more than slightly justified and possible less than that) and wasn't utterly misleading those he ingratiated to his particular worldview, but he sold a philosophy to people who believed it (or came to believe it... or went along with it for an easier life). If it wasn't the Jews it would have been the many other 'minorities' caught up in his policies. About the only one that somewhat failed to grab attention was the directive against the weak in body and mind, given that a significant number of German families had a family member of their own who came under that category. Much easier to target "Those people who aren't anything to do with us", at least on such a personal level.
(But this is very little to do with religion (or atheism), IMO. I don't know how I dragged myself into this bit of the discussion, I thought I'd be staying out of it. Forgive me if in my haste to gloss over issues I've left something of apparent insensitivity in my above missive. I consider myself a tolerant chap, and if I've left an insulting term or description unappended by "...as some people might say" or similar then I beg you to consider that it is my bad wording at fault, not personal prejudices.)
[1] A
[2] edit: whoops, meant "derogatory" (and followed by "term", or something?), I may have let my spill-chucker choose the wrong word after a typo/bad edit...
Post by: G-Flex on November 26, 2012, 09:40:29 am
First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief.
There's nothing inherently religious about the belief that, since the soul enters the body at conception, and a soul defines a person, the destruction of the embryo is in effect killing a person? How can you say this?
Post by: fqllve on November 26, 2012, 12:11:19 pm
...well obviously that is inherently religious. But I didn't say anything about souls or conception or any of that because that's not what I was talking about. Of course, sacred kinda makes it an example of false parallelism, I should have said "First, belief that destruction of fetal life is murder. . ."First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief.There's nothing inherently religious about the belief that, since the soul enters the body at conception, and a soul defines a person, the destruction of the embryo is in effect killing a person? How can you say this?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 12:11:41 pm
The new Testament is awfully silent on the matter. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention when it considers a being to live.First, belief that fetal life is sacred is not explicit anywhere within the religious doctrines and in fact there is nothing inherently religious about the belief.
There's nothing inherently religious about the belief that, since the soul enters the body at conception, and a soul defines a person, the destruction of the embryo is in effect killing a person? How can you say this?
And in fact, when you think of it, what is abortion doing? Is the child alive, or is it not. What makes the arbitraty definition between a child with age X weeks, and a child with ages X+1 week. When does it stop being abortion, and where does murder start? I'm not going to judge anyone, but it's a thing we should think about.
But would there be cultural Jews if there was, and never was, Judaism?You could be something similair. Just need to be a group that sticks together somewhat isolated from society and easily identifiable by a common trait. There's the Romani people(also known as gypsies) and much other ethnic groups who were/are also targetted from being different, and this time without religious reasons. Judaism was just a very large group of these, and their religion allowed them to keep together.
And would there be a stigma against them if there was no such thing as Islam or Christianity? :P
Considering other minorities can be discriminated against without religious reasons, I'm pretty sure there will/would have been.
Other points for the antisemitism can be found in WW I, (the person who signed the treaty was a Jew) and the years after. During the interbellum, some major figures in the governement were Jews (during their aforementioned expertise in financial matters) and in fact, if one of them hadn't been eliminated it's unlikely World war II would have been a fact.Snip
Got a point there, I suppose. It's not good to base moral systems on the litteral, fundamentalist intrepretations of a text.QuoteSomeone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.
The is not representitive of my argument, since I am finding an example where religion was the cause, not just that someone doing the crime was religious (someome murdered someome because of the party hat, not just happened to be wearing it. If someome murdered directly due to wearing a party hat, then wearing a party hat would sometimes cause murder).
I am not trying to show that religion is bad overall, or even that there is a correlation between religion and bad things.
Besides,Quote from: Wikipedia(I know, Wikipedia, but there are sources)Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing has identified both religious and sociopolitical motivations. Those who cite religious factors as an important influence note that religion provides the framework because the bombers believe they are acting in the name of Islam and will be rewarded as martyrs.
I also can not find any information on Causation !=> Correlation on the internet (all the results are the other way around, unsuprisingly.). I would be literally interested in a link on an explanation, since with respect to Correlation !=> Causation (which we know is right, and is the only think I have to go on) (A !=> B) !=> (B !=> A).
Hold your horses. Correlation doesn't justify causation.(Yeah, got it the other way around I believe) It might hint at Causation, but it doesn't always imply it. Hence my paper hat argument. I was wearing a hat when I killed somebody, but that doesn't imply that wearing hats cause people to murder each other.
Your version of the paper hat story says that Causation means Causation, which it does. The argument is most clear when used with statistics. (90% of all murders happens by people with paper hats on. Either paper hats causes murder, murder causes paper hats, an unknown thing causes murder and paper hats or both are completely unrelated)
Yes, those problems would happen anyway.Yes you've stated a bunch of sensible reasons that people could commit horrible acts. So what? How does that automatically make it so religious based horrrible acts are not something that should be focused on? Or are you saying that these problems are already going to happen and religion just is tacked on? And yes religion is founded on the society it was created by. Hence the Bible was based off the culture of a bunch of pillaging and raping Jewish people. And now it is a book that people worship as the word of God. To deal with the problem of that society is to dismiss the Bible as not the word of God, as just an immoral book. And I agree with this, but do you really think that the current religions would stand if that happened? This is what I mean by getting rid of religion.How the hell can you say that religion is just an excuse used and not a cause? Do you really think that all these people have ulterior motives and just use religion as an excuse? That they don't actually believe? What type of conspiracy world are you living in? I've stated a whole lot of sensible motives. Religion is often molded by the society it's founded in, so you need to look for the problems there, not with the religion. What kind of conspiracy world are you living in that you believe that there's a giant organised system causing evil on large scales, while being supported by large parts of the population and justifying it's actions by stating it's doing just the reverse of what you're accusing it of.
As for Hitler...
1) Yes, religion was the justification. I don't care whether he was religious or not, the soldiers and common people believed what they were doing was right because of religion.Not anymore than that they believed they were the master race, and that the Jews were bad(And not because their religion said so.).
2) Why the hell would he also target Catholics?Because he was a Lutheran Christian. They have radically different visions on certain parts, but there was no real animousity at that point in time. He did target mormons for example, as well as several other minorities. Not because the religion said him to do so, but because they were easy targets.
3) How the hell does fundamentalism increase because of atheism vs religion? Do you really need to ask that question? If people get the feeling they're being threatened/ repressed, you automatically get a polirazation of beliefs. The middle ground dissappears, and you're left with fundamentalist and radicalization.
I am starting to get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.Trust me, I have that feeling a lot around here.
Yes, But hitler believing that there should be a master race is also a huge factor. But it doesn't excuse religion's role in this. What do you think would sway more people to allow mass murdering to occur? "God wishes this", or "this race is superior"?
Jews WERE targetted mainly because of religion. Hitler choose them and other weak targets. They were weak because they were discriminated against, because of their religion. And religion OS what made people turn the other cheek to the slaughter.
I don't remember much pillaging and raping going on when the Bible was being written. At that point, the Romans were firmly in charge of the Jewish terretory. Remember that the Bible is a book over the life of Jezus, which at that time must have been a pretty amazing figure. So amazing, that the writers of the gospels went to methaphors and symbolism to explain it. The strongest and most wellknown symbolics known in those time where to be found in the Jewish religion. Hence the inclusion of the old Testament in the Bible.
This argument is supported by several early- medieval writers, and by much Christian art. You constantly see parts of the life of Jezus being pictured next to parts of the Old testament. Hence the old testament provided the background/ foreshadowed the life of Christ. It's not primarly intended to be a consecutive story. I'm also firmly against the censorship and such that would imply. Provided with proper background, the Bible ( and several others books, even Mein Kampf and such) are perfectly fine. I get it if you want to crack down on certain intrepretations, but what you want to do implies a lot of censorship on old and contemporary works. ((Also, it's completely impossible, and forbidding things is absolutely not going to help. It's the easiest way to see [Insert nation here] go up in flames))
This race is superior is a very strong argument. You're ridiculizing it, but psychological experiments have been done, and found out just what horrible things you can let people do if you control their main influence of information. Hitler controlled radio, television, everything. What he didn't control where the churches, who went against it as much as they could. (Read, didn't openly support him. Most priests aren't crazy.)
Jews weren't targetted mainly because of religion, they just made an easy target. If you look at the different people Hitler ordered to kill, you don't see a religious motive for most of them, but you do see them fit into his vision of an uberrace.
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 12:55:12 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 01:01:51 pm
No matter how much you debate religion and the existence of God, you are going to go around in circles forever because it's bullshit created by our own minds long ago.Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate the effort, and will defend your right to say, but please go be incooperative somewhere else.
Yes, the cynisism and hypocricy is intended
Post by: Hiiri on November 26, 2012, 01:13:40 pm
No matter how much you debate religion and the existence of God, you are going to go around in circles forever because it's bullshit created by our own minds long ago.Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate the effort, and will defend your right to say, but please go be incooperative somewhere else.
At least it was constructive.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 01:33:02 pm
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:06:06 pm
Dogmatic assertions of axioms counts as constructive?
We created God and religion ourselves out of our inability to comprehend absolute power or things being left entirely to chance and coincidence, originally growing from a need to understand the world around us. Even if we are kings we still have to have this concept that not everything is within our control - atheists like me rely on the idea of nature and the world around us. It's really hard to imagine yourself as the closest thing to a god that actually exists. It's just the way we've evolved.
I am certain, deep in my gut, that this is just bullshit, that's why you're going to spend another 200 pages debating over the philosophical minutae. It's... just false. It's hard to explain. It's like when you look at the ontological argument for the existence of god and you can follow that pattern to will all sorts of stuff into existence - the god of trampolines, for instance. You come up with all these problems and weird stuff because it's just wrong right at the core, like a rotten 2x4.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 02:10:26 pm
I'll just post this thing again:
It's a common mistake that people assume that science and religion are incompatible, that they're succesive and mutually exclusive points in a search for knowledge, and that one can not have one without the other. The truth is that science and religion don't aim to answer the same questions*.
*Unless you're a fundamentalist, of course.
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:14:58 pm
It's hard to explain because you don't understand, and you don't understand because you don't want to listen, because you already made up your mind.
I'll just post this thing again:
It's a common mistake that people assume that science and religion are incompatible, that they're succesive and mutually exclusive points in a search for knowledge, and that one can not have one without the other. The truth is that science and religion don't aim to answer the same questions*.
*Unless you're a fundamentalist, of course.
But I do want to listen. I do want you to show me evidence for the existence of God, especially evidence for the existence of an afterlife - because I sure as hell do not want to die. I fear death terribly because I feel right in my bones that when I die I am going to rot in the ground, switched off forever like a broken light bulb. I'm not a happy atheist, I'm actually very scared.
But I haven't said that science and religion are incompatible, I've said that I don't believe in God because it's something we made up.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 02:19:06 pm
Post by: Owlbread on November 26, 2012, 02:23:17 pm
Wrong questions, I'm afraid. Can't help you with those.
Nobody can.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 02:25:13 pm
Some people might claim they can, but it's unlikely they're right.Wrong questions, I'm afraid. Can't help you with those.Nobody can.
Good thing those aren't the question ((modern)) religion tries to answer.
Post by: Descan on November 26, 2012, 02:35:12 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 02:38:47 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 26, 2012, 02:51:22 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 03:08:07 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 03:23:30 pm
Some religions seem to be like that, but most western religions spend quite a bit of time going on about how if you don't do what they say you'll get a BAD AFTERLIFE and if you do you'll achieve a GOOD AFTERLIFE.Methaphors, often. Christianity even goes as far as saying that doing good in order to get you into heaven won't get you there.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 03:35:45 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 26, 2012, 03:37:42 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 03:43:49 pm
So you wouldn't disagree with the statement "no god exists" because the god in Christianity is metaphorical? Because if it's just a system of morals and way of life then it isn't making any claims about how the universe is.In the context you're stating that question (Ie, God as a might being that smites people with lightning, and intervenes and stuff), I completely agree with it.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 26, 2012, 03:49:07 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 04:14:39 pm
Let's take god to be "any kind of supreme intelligence". Doesn't have to be interventive.Still no, I suppose. At least not on religious reasons. It's pretty well possible that we're being manipulated by "supreme" aliens. (how can you (dis)prove that) , but that has nothing to do with religion.
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 04:16:57 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 26, 2012, 04:20:17 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on November 26, 2012, 04:33:15 pm
Post by: brainfreez on November 26, 2012, 05:46:17 pm
people might use religion as escape from reality to say that after death i will go to heaven .
thinking that there will be nothing after death drives me into depression , because why should i live and waste time having painful moments?
this is where i see a reason for religion , but why should i lie to myself when i know that i will never believe in gods.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 26, 2012, 05:48:13 pm
Post by: brainfreez on November 26, 2012, 05:55:25 pm
and , yea the deism sounds cool .
Post by: Sheb on November 26, 2012, 05:56:05 pm
Post by: alexandertnt on November 26, 2012, 06:45:59 pm
Got a point there, I suppose. It's not good to base moral systems on the litteral, fundamentalist intrepretations of a text.QuoteSomeone murdered someone else while wearing a party hat.
The is not representitive of my argument, since I am finding an example where religion was the cause, not just that someone doing the crime was religious (someome murdered someome because of the party hat, not just happened to be wearing it. If someome murdered directly due to wearing a party hat, then wearing a party hat would sometimes cause murder).
I am not trying to show that religion is bad overall, or even that there is a correlation between religion and bad things.
Besides,Quote from: Wikipedia(I know, Wikipedia, but there are sources)Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing has identified both religious and sociopolitical motivations. Those who cite religious factors as an important influence note that religion provides the framework because the bombers believe they are acting in the name of Islam and will be rewarded as martyrs.
I also can not find any information on Causation !=> Correlation on the internet (all the results are the other way around, unsuprisingly.). I would be literally interested in a link on an explanation, since with respect to Correlation !=> Causation (which we know is right, and is the only think I have to go on) (A !=> B) !=> (B !=> A).
Hold your horses. Correlation doesn't justify causation.(Yeah, got it the other way around I believe) It might hint at Causation, but it doesn't always imply it. Hence my paper hat argument. I was wearing a hat when I killed somebody, but that doesn't imply that wearing hats cause people to murder each other.
Your version of the paper hat story says that Causation means Causation, which it does. The argument is most clear when used with statistics. (90% of all murders happens by people with paper hats on. Either paper hats causes murder, murder causes paper hats, an unknown thing causes murder and paper hats or both are completely unrelated)
Well if it is a bad idea to basse a moral system on a literal interpretation of a text, that just means that there now exists many different ways of interpreting the text. This would seem to mean that good morals extracted from the text are based on coincidence or self-interpretation, rather than actual teaching of the text. This seems like a risky way to derive morals.
I do not understand where I implied Correlation => Causation. I was expressing doubt that Causation !=> Correlation (Which is what you said in response to one of my point). Infact it would seem that it should, if X caused Y and X took place, than there would seem to have to be a non-zero correlation between X and Y. (I am not entirely sure if "Yeah, got it the other way around I believe" is you achnoweledging that you meant Correlation != > Causation instead, or that I somehow got them mixed). I have been giving examples of causation, and using them as counter exampls to "all x does not cause y" (all religion does not cause bad things). If this causation holds out, there would seem to have to be a correlation but there does not have to be for it to work as a valid counter example.
Your paper-hat example is just Correlation !=> Causation, which is not in doubt. (If paper hats do cause murder, it would seem to imply the existance of a correlation between wearing paper hats and murder. This would be an example of the paper hat argument modified for Causation => Correlation).
It tries to provide a system of morals, a way of life based on it's holy books, often with varying degrees of succes and useability depending on intrepretations.
It does try to do these things. It would seem that inflexable, thousands of years old teachings would not be a good base for moral and way-of-life teachings especially in modern life where things like homosexuality is no longer taboo.
Plus, without the existance of God(s)/Evil equivelant, or other supernatural assumptions of many texts the enforcement mechanism of many religions would seem to break down.
Some religions do have some moral, way of life teachings without much of the supernatural stuff, mind you. But most don't.
Post by: EveryZig on November 27, 2012, 07:57:46 pm
It tries to provide a system of morals, a way of life based on it's holy books, often with varying degrees of succes and useability depending on intrepretations.Aside from issues you might raise with about the quality of religions morality, there is a fairly major question of how many people actually follow religion this way. In the U.S. at least, when you actually (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/) study (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx) people's religion-based views they are quite definitely influenced by religion's fact-claims.
My perception is probably exaggerating things, but it annoys me how sophisticated religions tend to withdraw into a shell of metaphor and vagueness when challenged but scuttle about making fact-claims the moment you turn your back.
Post by: Ship of Freaks on November 27, 2012, 08:04:54 pm
I do want you to show me evidence for the existence of God, especially evidence for the existence of an afterlife - because I sure as hell do not want to die. I fear death terribly because I feel right in my bones that when I die I am going to rot in the ground, switched off forever like a broken light bulb. I'm not a happy atheist, I'm actually very scared.I find it interesting that you look at it in this way, as many atheist-types like to discredit the (supposed) merit of religion that it does, in fact, often contribute to people's feeling better, by telling how happy they are with their atheism, or even because of it. I know one man who said that he did not want to believe in an afterlife because that would make this life less meaningful to him; he wanted to feel that this was it, that this life was what he got and that after it all he would rot in the earth.
As for me, I fear that if I ever felt certain that, upon death, I would cease to exist, I might, on the contrary, be in danger of suicide. It's not that I'm religious; I don't believe in believe in Heaven or Hell. I just don't really feel that I know.
Post by: kaijyuu on November 27, 2012, 08:23:32 pm
To my knowledge, dualism hasn't been confirmed or even suggested by empirical evidence, so... :|
Post by: Micro102 on November 27, 2012, 08:26:39 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 27, 2012, 08:32:23 pm
If you want some confirmation of an afterlife, you'll probably want to find evidence for dualism. As certain as taxes, one day you're going to die and the meat in your head going to rot, so you'd want to make sure that "you" is separate from it in some fashion and can be preserved.I'm tempted to say it's somewhat contradicted by drugs and brain damaging accidents (unless you go down the "alcohol is a soul corrupting drink" route). You can kindof fudge your way around it but it's still an issue.
To my knowledge, dualism hasn't been confirmed or even suggested by empirical evidence, so... :|
Post by: Ship of Freaks on November 27, 2012, 10:01:56 pm
I was definitely not saying that I'd like to go to Heaven and would be done with it all if I knew I couldn't get there. The very idea of such an afterlife as described in the Bible or other places hardly feels credible.
Post by: EveryZig on November 28, 2012, 12:22:44 am
If people knew more about heaven, they might not think it so great. In the bible, heaven is described as you and everyone else, and 4 giant creatures with eyes covering both the inside and outside of their body, all praising God's glory for eternity without rest.Except you are constantly high enough to enjoy it anyway, because Yahweh is a hell of a drug. :P
Post by: MaximumZero on November 28, 2012, 01:03:57 am
So, this was part of an email I sent out earlier on the subject. Thinking about what's going to happen to my body after I die always kind of makes me feel better.
Quote
I'm sure that during your quest to sate your knowledge of the world, you've come across Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass. If not: It simply means that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Given that, and the fact that we are made of particles that are made of matter, one could quickly come to an interesting conclusion: that, as unscientific as this sounds, we really do (kind of) get to live forever. You see, when our bodies die, and we are no longer conscious, the atoms and molecules that make us up still exist. The water that makes up roughly 70% of our bodies will return to the Earth, and we will become the fog, the mist, the rain, and eventually the oceans. That other 30% or so will return to the soil and enrich it. We feed the plants that grow above our bones with our flesh, and they feed the animals, and so on and so forth. I'm sure you've seen the Lion King. This cycle will continue on for billions of years, until the sun strips our atoms and molecules away from the planet and tosses them into space, where the building blocks that were once us will spend the rest of eternity among the stars, where they were created. One day, our particles may rain down upon another planet, and seed that planet with the building blocks of life, if there isn't already life there, and if there is, we simply enter the natural cycle of nearly infinite life once more.
I get asked every once in a while whether I believe in anything after death. Most people are confused when I say, "Yes, I do," even though I'm a rather loud atheist. That said, I believe in the universe both before life and after death, and I get excited and awed to think that the tiniest bits that make up me were once part of a star, and that one day, they may be again.
Post by: Siquo on November 28, 2012, 04:04:24 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 08:00:49 am
It tries to provide a system of morals, a way of life based on it's holy books, often with varying degrees of succes and useability depending on intrepretations.Aside from issues you might raise with about the quality of religions morality, there is a fairly major question of how many people actually follow religion this way. In the U.S. at least, when you actually (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/) study (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx) people's religion-based views they are quite definitely influenced by religion's fact-claims.
My perception is probably exaggerating things, but it annoys me how sophisticated religions tend to withdraw into a shell of metaphor and vagueness when challenged but scuttle about making fact-claims the moment you turn your back.
Both studies are based on thousand people of a 300 million population. I have my questions about their statistical correctness.
Also, in the first study you study, you could argue that there might be confusing concerning the question. (In particular, the meaning of believe and angels). I don't believe in winged androgynous humanoids flying around, but I might still believe in Angels. (As soon as I remember what those symbolized again).
The second study is better supported, especially because it's a combination of studies since 1982. However, do note the country in which it was held. Creationism is rarely a problem outside the US, though it's spreading. (Which is AFAIK, a bad thing). This problem with highly religious people in the US has existed since the founding of the colonies, since those were the places were all European states exported their religious nutjobs too.
Post by: Grek on November 28, 2012, 08:27:16 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 08:36:46 am
The interesting thing about statistics is that it doesn't matter how big your sample is as a fraction of the population, only in absolute terms. A sample of 30 out of 300 is just as good as a sample of 30 out of 300 thousand or 30 out of 300 million. What you should actually be concerned about is systematic biases like only asking in the South or only polling people that use the internet or whatever. Neither of which seems to be the case.Not really, the accuracy tremendously drops.
Let's use a silly example. There are 30 cards in a hat, and a randomly pick 2. (Meaning I examine 6% of the total card population). Now, assuming half the cards are red, the other halfs blue. The chance that I get an accurate statistic (Ie, 1 red, 1 blue) is only 25%. For the others, the enquiry will not be representative of the population.
Also, there's systematic bias. It's a telephone enquiry, meaning it only asks people who posses landlines.
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 08:49:41 am
Not really, the accuracy tremendously drops.
Let's use a silly example. There are 30 cards in a hat, and a randomly pick 2. (Meaning I examine 6% of the total card population). Now, assuming half the cards are red, the other halfs blue. The chance that I get an accurate statistic (Ie, 1 red, 1 blue) is only 25%. For the others, the enquiry will not be representative of the population.
Actually it's 50% chance of drawing a red+blue, 25% both red, 25% both blue.
The important point though is that those chances would be EXACTLY THE SAME if you were drawing from a set of 30 million rather than 30, proving that sample size matters, and total population size does not - as long as you have a representative sample.
What you actually showed there was that the "30 cards total" played no part whatsoever in the accuracy in determining the average from 2 cards. The 30 played no part in the calculation.
This is college Statistics 101.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 09:41:50 am
Also, there's systematic bias. It's a telephone enquiry, meaning it only asks people who posses landlines.So people who adhere to religions in the way you suggest are less likely to possess landlines because...?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 09:51:28 am
Other enquiries have shown that a large part of the younger population doesn't use landlines, preferring mobiles and stuff.Also, there's systematic bias. It's a telephone enquiry, meaning it only asks people who posses landlines.So people who adhere to religions in the way you suggest are less likely to possess landlines because...?
This might influence statistics, or it might not. Can't know it untill we get a proper enquiry. And even then, the US is not representative for the rest of the world.
Post by: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 10:00:31 am
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:28:17 am
This race is superior is a very strong argument. You're ridiculizing it, but psychological experiments have been done, and found out just what horrible things you can let people do if you control their main influence of information. Hitler controlled radio, television, everything. What he didn't control where the churches, who went against it as much as they could. (Read, didn't openly support him. Most priests aren't crazy.)
Sorry buddy but you're babbling crap now:
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm
Quote
American Christians seem to be completely unaware of the degree to which Christians in Germany threw their support behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. If they did, they might be less likely to pretend that the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis can be traced to atheism or secularism. They might also be less likely to do so much to transform their own Christianity into an American echo of Germany's extreme nationalistic Christianity.
It's extremely well-established. You know, he had both the Lutherans AND the catholic churches on side?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3164219?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101493591327
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Isn't there are commandment against lying?
Post by: Micro102 on November 28, 2012, 10:31:48 am
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:38:49 am
The problem you have with your theory is that people ARE NOT CARDS. Cards are all unique by design, so removing a 6 of hearts, means no other 6 of hearts can exist. Whereas in a "real world" random deck there may be multiple of the same card - uniqueness of data points is not guaranteed.
Post by: Helgoland on November 28, 2012, 10:46:30 am
Sorry buddy but you're babbling crap now:Right back at you, fella: I'm German and a catholic; while it's true that a large part of the official churches (just like most of the population) supported or at least tolerated Hitler, there was some significant resistance from the religious side: Just google "Bekennende Kirche" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, does that ring a bell? "Von guten Mächten treu und still umgeben", 'surrounded by good forces, loyal and silent', is a song he wrote during his last days in concentration camp) or "Graf von Galen" (a catholic bishop in the north of Germany; he prevented the deportation of the disabled (although not that of the jews) and openly preached against the Nazis; the only reason they didn't deport him was that there would've been a giant rebellion in the area).
Black and white thinking on both the religious and the atheist side is, to put it simply, disgusting. A fundamentalist atheist is no better than an evangelical christion protesting against gays in the military or teaching the theory of evolution in school. Hooray for agnosticism!
Isn't there are commandment against lying?Now that's just polemics. "RELIGIONS HEV KILLED MNAY PEOPEL!" is on the same argumentative niveau, though I admit your spelling is better ;)
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:48:00 am
You're talking apples and oranges. Try and learn logic:
The negation of "all churches opposed hitler" is NOT "all churches supported hitler"
The negation is "not all churches opposed hitler", which is completely different.
Now that's just polemics. "RELIGIONS HEV KILLED MNAY PEOPEL!" is on the same argumentative niveau, though I admit your spelling is better ;)
Ahh ok on top of mangling basic logic, you're now using straw-man and putting words in my mouth which are not in any way supported by what i wrote. Good values you have there.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 10:50:32 am
Also, I said the church, as the institute. Not, the church as the collection of all the religious people. Of course the majority of the christians in germany followed Hitler. (Being , at the time, a mostly protestant country, there's no other way). At that point in time, more than 90% of the country was religious, either protestant or catholic. There's no way a faction having popular support would not have been supported by what is the majority of the population.
While the protestant church was mainly pro hitler (mostly because it was state controlled since the 1930 something), a significant fraction broke of, and later even tried to assinate him in 1943. The Catholician clergy was mostly antiHitler, resulting in a treatment of at best toleration, but often even open aggresion.
Quote
Before Hitler rose to power, many Catholic priests and leaders vociferously opposed Nazism on the grounds of its incompatibility with Christian moralsSeveral thousand priests died in concentration camps, mostly Polish ones. Almost all abbey's and such where nationalized and secularized.
The church itself maintained neutrality, even as Rome was occupied by Nazi-Germany, and actively tried to prevent another war. (As did the all the other nations involved)
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City_during_World_War_II#Public_statements)
LInk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)
PS: My main error was that I assumed Hitler didn't control the churches. Apparently he did. Or at least the protestant ones.
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:55:23 am
BTW you do realize that those wikipedia entries support my source, either way.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 10:58:55 am
Thanks for providing 100% unbiased wikipedia to refute my book sources. Ta. Seriously every interest group on the planet has been caught editing the wiki pages about themselves.I suppose a website which is based around neutrality of information is still a better information source then a website designed to be a catalogue of anti religious arguments.
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 10:59:37 am
Quote
The German Christians (Deutsche Christen) constituted the strongest Protestant movement in Germany after the 1932 Church elections, with the aim of synthesising Christianity with the ideology of National Socialism. There were various groups within the German Evangelical Church including the Deutsche Christen and opposition factions that later split under the name Confessing Church. The Deutsche Christen factions were united in the goal of establishing a national socialist Protestantism [16] Deutsche Christen abolished what they considered to be Jewish traditions in Christianity, and some but not all rejected the Old Testament altogether. They rejected academic theology as sterile and not populist enough and were often anti-Catholic. On November 1933, A Protestant mass rally of the Deutsche Christen, which brought together a record 20,000 people, passed three resolutions:
Adolf Hitler is the completion of the Reformation
...
Ludwig Müller (a German who headed the German Christians (German: Deutsche Christen) )
Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), after his first meeting with Hitler, was convinced that he had a divine responsibility to promote Hitler and his ideals,
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 11:03:56 am
Yeah but your source says the same as mine, so you're misrepresenting it, or plain not reading it at all.They do? It appears not to me.
It clearly states that before and in the beginning all but the statecontrolled churches opposed the Nazi regime, and that after they either opposed and were arrested, or remained neutral.
You guys seem to be severly underestimating what somebody can do with a crisis, and complete control of all media for a period of about 7 years.
Post by: Helgoland on November 28, 2012, 11:22:51 am
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 11:29:45 am
Quote
Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts
Are you seriously going to cherry-pick only the "convenient" parts of your own source? Sure, there were dissenters, but there were many who believed in and worked with the Nazi's right through the war. There were very few atheists at that time.
Post by: Starver on November 28, 2012, 11:41:33 am
Spoiler: An irrelevant aside about stats, ninjaed anyway (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 11:59:33 am
"In the beginning" they didn't have any state-controlled churches, so you have that backwards - that came later. and there are numerous passages in your source which contradict the basic premise you're making:QuoteMany Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts
Are you seriously going to cherry-pick only the "convenient" parts of your own source? Sure, there were dissenters, but there were many who believed in and worked with the Nazi's right through the war. There were very few atheists at that time.
Who's cherrypicking here? Even in the quotes you provided, you clearly show that the Nazis manipulated religion, as they did with much other things. The media was also on Hitlers hand, but nobody thinks to enforce media neutrality. Let's continue that line, Hitler used youth movements(I probably google translatered this into nonsense) like the Hitler Jugend, but everyone thinks the Scouts and such are a good idea. Never mind the fact that both of these have a far larger manipulative effect than religion, especially in our current society.
Adding on to that. Hitler was in control of the churches from the moment he took the governement, long before the war. This is what caused the dissidents. Also, adding on to that. If a country is mostly religious, how does that prove anything about the value of religion. There's no control group to speak of. There were nearly no atheists in germany, so how can you see that they would have been better, or that (the absence of) religion would have/ had any influence on the outcome.
((Also, quit modifying your post after I react to them. It's just low.))
Post by: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 12:01:18 pm
The media was also on Hitlers hand, but nobody thinks to enforce media neutrality.I do
Let's continue that line, Hitler used youth movements(I probably google translatered this into nonsense) like the Hitler Jugend, but everyone thinks the Scouts and such are a good idea. Never mind the fact that both of these have a far larger manipulative effect than religion, especially in our current society.I also oppose manipulative youth groups
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 28, 2012, 12:13:24 pm
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 12:19:20 pm
btw the original quote of yours that I was responding to is this one:
"What he didn't control where the churches, who went against it as much as they could. (Read, didn't openly support him. Most priests aren't crazy.)"
You were proven totally wrong, on that one, and you've been "moving the goalposts" ever since.
Hell, you proved yourself wrong, I didn't have to add much.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 28, 2012, 12:44:01 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 12:48:46 pm
State of religion in the third world by 2050? By that time in the first world, i expect it to have lessened it's influence even further.It depends, actually. If there isn't any sort of major crisis, I don't expect any crazyness. However, with the incertainity of the future things could go in all directions.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 28, 2012, 12:50:10 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on November 28, 2012, 12:51:20 pm
calm down and cut the insults or stop arguing.Woah now, no-one except you has been calling others Hitler-people.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 12:57:50 pm
Incidentally, how do the local religious fanatics explain the living standards of the west as opposed to their own?The same as all the others. The "Evil" west is manipulating third world countries, setting them up against each other, and exploiting them for their resources.
And, if you look at recent history (Cold war), you can't really blame them for thinking that.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 28, 2012, 12:58:26 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 12:59:09 pm
Why'd god let us do that again?
Because he's not the interventionist God you think him to be. Also, because you didn't listen.
Post by: Reelya on November 28, 2012, 01:03:47 pm
Post by: Helgoland on November 28, 2012, 01:12:04 pm
Woah now, no-one except you has been calling others Hitler-people.I think that's just descriptive of the topic - at least I don't feel even the slightest bit insulted.
is God all-knowing and all-powerful? Then, he must already know the future of the world before he created it. So it's all on his shoulders, all the suffering, everything. An all-powerful and all-knowing God could have created the "finished" beings without the need for "trials" on Earth, just by thinking about it, God could see exactly what those beings would be, and create them already-finished, with implanted memories.And you just discovered theodicy. Enjoy a complimentary SMBC that explains the various ways to answer it quite well:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2292
Post by: 10ebbor10 on November 28, 2012, 01:13:57 pm
That being said, the Christian god certainly isn't the most powerfull God. He got nailed to a cross remember. But however, what if we assume that God is indeed all powerfull. WHat prevents him of having created use, exactly 5 seconds ago, with all our memories being completely false, and with none of what we have remembered actually having happened.
Even more, all this are, again, quasi litteral intrepretations. It's perfectly possible to believe in God/ Christianity/ [Insert religion here] without believing in Creationism, or that God actually physically exists as a being capable of interaction with this world.
Note: We did do this one already, several times.
Post by: Scoops Novel on November 28, 2012, 01:19:02 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 28, 2012, 03:18:34 pm
Woah now, no-one except you has been calling others Hitler-people.
I think that's just descriptive of the topic - at least I don't feel even the slightest bit insulted.
I'm pretty sure it was a joke.
Post by: alexandertnt on November 28, 2012, 06:48:41 pm
Are we truly human without pain, without suffering, without anger.
Yes.
Couldn't God have just created us with the ability to be "human" without these traits? It did define what "human" is, afterall.
That being said, the Christian god certainly isn't the most powerfull God.
Depends who you ask.
Post by: Realmfighter on November 28, 2012, 08:29:04 pm
Are we truly human without pain, without suffering, without anger. A world without all these emotions might look like an utopia, but it might actually be a nightmare. A bleak distillment of all those things that make humanity great. (Note that I don't want to justify any or all bad things in the world)
So basically what you're saying is that believing in God sends you to a nightmare, while turning your back on him sends you to a paradise relative to the "Bleak distillment of all those things that make humanity great"?
Post by: EveryZig on November 29, 2012, 01:11:49 am
Are we truly human without pain, without suffering, without anger. A world without all these emotions might look like an utopia, but it might actually be a nightmare. A bleak distillment of all those things that make humanity great. (Note that I don't want to justify any or all bad things in the world)A perfect world is indeed quite likely self-contradictory, but it is also not necessary for this to be a challenge to the 3 omnis. The only thing you need for that is the possibility of a better world, a possibility that I think is established by how people can sometimes succeed in working towards one.
And free will doesn't get you very far in justifying the state of the world, as there are plenty of bad events (tornados, floods, BEES) that are not caused by people.
That being said, the Christian god certainly isn't the most powerfull God. He got nailed to a cross remember.Being nailed to a cross doesn't say anything about how powerful he is. It is a well established part of their doctrine that the cross bit was because
Post by: Micro102 on December 05, 2012, 08:17:51 am
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 05, 2012, 08:20:15 am
Post by: Starver on December 05, 2012, 08:55:20 am
So, interesting topic I saw brought upon some youtube video somewhere. This guy said that Christianity is the only religion where you can't earn heaven, but you have to simply turn away from sin and trust in Jesus' sacrifice alone, and that's why it's better to believe in that religion.
<Snort through nose sound>
Good job I wasn't drinking at the time, or that would definitely have been a C|N>K moment.
Much apart from priestly absolutions, paid-for Indulgences and the like, in Christianity's case, I've a feeling[1] that he's probably a Christian by birth, through life, and almost entirely through association (and within a sub-set of one of Christianity's various flavours, at that) who just doesn't know much more than the "official line" as brought forth by his pastor/priest/vicar/whatever, and has never seriously looked into what any other creed thinks...
You gotta love those kind of people. Well, except for WBC, for whom I general reserve either laughter or a facepalming whenever I hear of their various activities.
[1] Although don't care to trawl through YouTube to get an eyeball on the guy's full submission to substantiate myself. So you're going to have to allow me this little assumption...
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 12:53:18 pm
Post by: Graknorke on December 05, 2012, 12:58:10 pm
Wait, why is "Whether you're good or bad, as long as you bribe the big guy with ego-stroking worship, you're in!" a good thing?That's not even true.
You have to sell all your stuff and give it to the poor. Jesus said it so many times.
Post by: Glowcat on December 05, 2012, 12:59:52 pm
Or to be more accurate, those who reported what Jesus said made him say many things.
Post by: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 01:04:19 pm
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 01:07:55 pm
I mean, I can see why it caught on. It's easier to convert people to your religion and get them giving 10% of their income to you if you can tell them that "Oh, you don't need to change what you do! Just say the magic words, go to the magic building once a week!"
But how is it a moral, good thing that you're basically bribing the bouncer to get into the club? :I
Plus you got all the Ghandis and Hitlers in the world, with their respective "Ghandi is in hell because he forgot the bribe the warden, Hitler is in heaven because he said the magic words."
And the dudes in, like, Tenochtitlan who never even -heard- of Jesus! What, do they all go to hell? Or are they all in heaven because they never heard the Word? And if the latter, WHY DID YOU TELL THEM ABOUT JESUS?!
[/end rant]
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2012, 01:11:00 pm
Meh, screw Pascal's wager. Any heaven that does not let in good heathens is not a heaven I want to be in anyways.Also there is an equal chance of a god who would send Christians/good people to hell etc
Post by: fqllve on December 05, 2012, 01:12:45 pm
The weird thing is the whole salvation through grace is more a feature of Protestantism than any fixture of Christianity and that some Muslims follow the exact same doctrine.So, interesting topic I saw brought upon some youtube video somewhere. This guy said that Christianity is the only religion where you can't earn heaven, but you have to simply turn away from sin and trust in Jesus' sacrifice alone, and that's why it's better to believe in that religion.Much apart from priestly absolutions, paid-for Indulgences and the like, in Christianity's case, I've a feeling[1] that he's probably a Christian by birth, through life, and almost entirely through association (and within a sub-set of one of Christianity's various flavours, at that) who just doesn't know much more than the "official line" as brought forth by his pastor/priest/vicar/whatever, and has never seriously looked into what any other creed thinks...
Frankly, I think the whole salvation by grace idea is one of the worst ones Christianity has had, it's just as bad as the aforementioned simony. Why would someone be rewarded for believing in something without evidence? Why would someone deserve a reward for that? I've heard the argument that "true faith brings true works" but not only is that a no true Scotsman fallacy but if you look at people with "true faith" it's not even true.
Post by: Helgoland on December 05, 2012, 01:28:29 pm
The Pascal's wager part of that idea :DMeh, screw Pascal's wager. Any heaven that does not let in good heathens is not a heaven I want to be in anyways.Also there is an equal chance of a god who would send Christians/good people to hell etc
Frankly, I think the whole salvation by grace idea is one of the worst ones Christianity has had, it's just as bad as the aforementioned simony. Why would someone be rewarded for believing in something without evidence? Why would someone deserve a reward for that? I've heard the argument that "true faith brings true works" but not only is that a no true Scotsman fallacy but if you look at people with "true faith" it's not even true.Does anyone know the catholic position on this? I think they somehow avoid the problem, but I might be wrong...
Post by: fqllve on December 05, 2012, 04:27:00 pm
Does anyone know the catholic position on this? I think they somehow avoid the problem, but I might be wrong...As far as I understand, it's that faith grants access to heaven, but sin bars it, whereas a lot of Protestants believe that grace through faith is the deciding factor. Plus there are all kinds of sacraments you have to undergo (which supposebly make you a good person), the purchasing of absolution for minor sins, as well as currying favor with saints to curry favor with God. And as for the Eastern Orthodox, from what I know their beliefs are completely different from both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. They seem to get it right though, in that it's a reward for being a good person.
Post by: Muz on December 05, 2012, 06:51:56 pm
Meh, screw Pascal's wager. Any heaven that does not let in good heathens is not a heaven I want to be in anyways.Also there is an equal chance of a god who would send Christians/good people to hell etc
Pfft, if you're a believer, you're automatically a good person. Hell is reserved for everyone else.
Post by: Owlbread on December 05, 2012, 07:01:49 pm
Post by: Osmosis Jones on December 05, 2012, 07:19:37 pm
And the dudes in, like, Tenochtitlan who never even -heard- of Jesus! What, do they all go to hell? Or are they all in heaven because they never heard the Word? And if the latter, WHY DID YOU TELL THEM ABOUT JESUS?!
I believe the general approach is purgatory if they're good, hell if they're bad.
Post by: Strife26 on December 05, 2012, 07:25:59 pm
The point of grace by faith is that, no matter how good you are, how moral you decide to try to be, at the end of the day, you're a shitbag sinner who has no chance of saving his own soul. So, the point is to act the best person you can be, with the knowledge that you're never good enough without Jesus' sacrifice. I mean, if you're going to attempt to use Apostle's Creed as a get out of hell free card, you're not being sincere about it, so it's hardly real faith.
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 07:30:37 pm
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 07:33:17 pm
The greatest argument for someone of Christian faith, broad term "kay, to continue believing as they do, is that they have been doing it all along.
Post by: Fenrir on December 05, 2012, 07:37:10 pm
Of course, God could just grow a pair and admit that he is the only being at fault, because he was the one who manufactured humanity broken in the first place.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 07:40:07 pm
The greatest argument for someone of Christian faith, broad term "kay, to continue believing as they do, is that they have been doing it all along.
If any of you think these words are insincere, read them again, they are bare, contextless. There is only the isolated glow of our progress before you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=61q-yAtU5-E#t=402s)
BLATANT EDIT!!!!!!!!!! oops, i meant to modify
Post by: fqllve on December 05, 2012, 07:40:24 pm
The point of grace by faith is that, no matter how good you are, how moral you decide to try to be, at the end of the day, you're a shitbag sinner who has no chance of saving his own soul. So, the point is to act the best person you can be, with the knowledge that you're never good enough without Jesus' sacrifice. I mean, if you're going to attempt to use Apostle's Creed as a get out of hell free card, you're not being sincere about it, so it's hardly real faith.Except that faith isn't a particularly moral position, it doesn't necessarily make you a good person. People are perfectly capable of being dicks (or worse) while still being devout and sometimes it even encourages it.
But actually, that's not a really objectionable interpretation you have there. My big problems with salvation through grace are the Lutheran and Calvinist interpretations of it which basically absolves the person of their sins up to and including without their own consent. The Lutherans even say "by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone."
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 07:41:52 pm
Post by: Strife26 on December 05, 2012, 08:07:21 pm
I suppose that I'd make the preconditions for salvation in my ideal Christian system to be
1) I am a flawed human being who cannot attain salvation on my own
2) Despite this, and because of it, I should always be striving to be the best person that I can be.
With a third truth, that this is only through the Grace of Christ alone.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:08:55 pm
Sure, but I'd contend that all dickishness like you're talking about isn't proper faith, it's people believing that they are good enough to make it on their own merits. If you're of the mindset of "I am a sinner, but I should be trying the best that I can to be a good person" there isn't much room for elitist, religious dickery.
I suppose that I'd make the preconditions for salvation in my ideal Christian system to be
1) I am a flawed human being who cannot attain salvation on my own
2) Despite this, and because of it, I should always be striving to be the best person that I can be.
With a third truth, that this is only through the Grace of Christ alone.
GI fucking Joe brother. Welcome to the Revolution! America has not Manifested its Destiny just yet. Modern warfare will need a greater name, continued tradition.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2012, 08:11:34 pm
Sure, but I'd contend that all dickishness like you're talking about isn't proper faith, it's people believing that they are good enough to make it on their own merits.I'd contend that all the non-porridge eating you're talking about isn't proper Scottishness, etc.
Post by: Strife26 on December 05, 2012, 08:15:12 pm
Sure, but I'd contend that all dickishness like you're talking about isn't proper faith, it's people believing that they are good enough to make it on their own merits.I'd contend that all the non-porridge eating you're talking about isn't proper Scottishness, etc.
Yeah, I suppose that my definition of Faith with a capital Foxtrot is a bit off of everyone else's, isn't it? At the very least, that's way I was raised to define it. I mean, dickishness by cause of faith is really just a subtype of dickishness by cause of feelings of superiority, isn't it?
I suppose that there's also disckishness by faith being well-meaning and blundering, but that's fairly tame in comparison, I think.
Sure, but I'd contend that all dickishness like you're talking about isn't proper faith, it's people believing that they are good enough to make it on their own merits. If you're of the mindset of "I am a sinner, but I should be trying the best that I can to be a good person" there isn't much room for elitist, religious dickery.
I suppose that I'd make the preconditions for salvation in my ideal Christian system to be
1) I am a flawed human being who cannot attain salvation on my own
2) Despite this, and because of it, I should always be striving to be the best person that I can be.
With a third truth, that this is only through the Grace of Christ alone.
GI fucking Joe brother. Welcome to the Revolution! America has not Manifested its Destiny just yet. Modern warfare will need a greater name, continued tradition.
What?
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:18:01 pm
What?
Nothing up the nancy, good chap. Just the old wink wink.
I mean it when I say tradition. Look around this is America.
Post by: Fenrir on December 05, 2012, 08:25:43 pm
Yeah, I suppose that my definition of Faith with a capital Foxtrot is a bit off of everyone else's, isn't it? At the very least, that's way I was raised to define it. I mean, dickishness by cause of faith is really just a subtype of dickishness by cause of feelings of superiority, isn't it?I think part of the point is that faith should not even be part of the equation, unless you have a Blue-Orange moral system. “You didn’t have faith in Jesus,” should not be counted against a person, so it doesn’t make sense to judge character or deny access to paradise with it. Now, if you don’t feel that way, we have rather different values, and there isn’t really any more to say.
I suppose that there's also disckishness by faith being well-meaning and blundering, but that's fairly tame in comparison, I think.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:26:54 pm
Yeah, I suppose that my definition of Faith with a capital Foxtrot is a bit off of everyone else's, isn't it? At the very least, that's way I was raised to define it. I mean, dickishness by cause of faith is really just a subtype of dickishness by cause of feelings of superiority, isn't it?I think part of the point is that faith should not even be part of the equation, unless you have a Blue-Orange moral system. “You didn’t have faith in Jesus,” should not be counted against a person, so it doesn’t make sense to judge character or deny access to paradise with it. Now, if you don’t feel that way, we have rather different values, and there isn’t really any more to say.
I suppose that there's also disckishness by faith being well-meaning and blundering, but that's fairly tame in comparison, I think.
Fenny, big Norse poochy, that is how I feel. Satan is God, if not, think, why Satan if God? Satan punishes sinners, mewhoo no?
Post by: Strife26 on December 05, 2012, 08:32:08 pm
Yeah, I suppose that my definition of Faith with a capital Foxtrot is a bit off of everyone else's, isn't it? At the very least, that's way I was raised to define it. I mean, dickishness by cause of faith is really just a subtype of dickishness by cause of feelings of superiority, isn't it?I think part of the point is that faith should not even be part of the equation, unless you have a Blue-Orange moral system. “You didn’t have faith in Jesus,” should not be counted against a person, so it doesn’t make sense to judge character or deny access to paradise with it. Now, if you don’t feel that way, we have rather different values, and there isn’t really any more to say.
I suppose that there's also disckishness by faith being well-meaning and blundering, but that's fairly tame in comparison, I think.
I'd certainly stand with you there, Fenrir. That third clause wasn't a requirement for anything, but just what I'd consider truth. Without Christ's Crucifixion, the only way to achieve salvation is by being perfect. He opened the door, but I don't think knowing that He opened it is a requirement for entry.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:34:40 pm
Yeah, I suppose that my definition of Faith with a capital Foxtrot is a bit off of everyone else's, isn't it? At the very least, that's way I was raised to define it. I mean, dickishness by cause of faith is really just a subtype of dickishness by cause of feelings of superiority, isn't it?I think part of the point is that faith should not even be part of the equation, unless you have a Blue-Orange moral system. “You didn’t have faith in Jesus,” should not be counted against a person, so it doesn’t make sense to judge character or deny access to paradise with it. Now, if you don’t feel that way, we have rather different values, and there isn’t really any more to say.
I suppose that there's also disckishness by faith being well-meaning and blundering, but that's fairly tame in comparison, I think.
I'd certainly stand with you there, Fenrir. That third clause wasn't a requirement for anything, but just what I'd consider truth. Without Christ's Crucifixion, the only way to achieve salvation is by being perfect. He opened the door, but I don't think knowing that He opened it is a requirement for entry.
God.
That alone is sacred. Christ in Heaven. Christ on Earth. Christ in Hell.
Of course, following after asians, or mongols, or whatever, God is not God for he is.
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 08:38:49 pm
Regardless, I'm reporting him. He's not... I don't even know what he's talking about. At all.
It actually IS like a spambot, putting words together that sooooound like they mean something but don't actually mean anything? Either that, or a politician.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:44:35 pm
... I think Alpha is a spambot.
Regardless, I'm reporting him. He's not... I don't even know what he's talking about. At all.
It actually IS like a spambot, putting words together that sooooound like they mean something but don't actually mean anything? Either that, or a politician.
Dude, seriously someone back me up. Is God out of the discussion here? I'm still working on an Atheist thesis.
Here, I'll prove God, actually, uh your alive. Why? God. Don't know how? The past. Don't know why? Me neither. I never asked them.
Are you proclaiming that I post TOO much? First it's too many modifications, now too many posts.
Chill, bro, peace. I live The Meadows and Cali is not far away. Sniff your computer I'm uploading.
Post by: Ogdibus on December 05, 2012, 08:47:42 pm
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:49:04 pm
Probably just "on something". Posts from earlier today were very coherent.
Voodoo yah? Mysticism is my true desire. Christ is neat to a point, until a Christian gets into the conversation, which is typically always.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2012, 08:50:55 pm
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 08:51:21 pm
ohgod.
Post by: Alpha Dwarf on December 05, 2012, 08:53:07 pm
Alpha Dwarf: please don't post until you've either taken your meds or stop taking your "meds". Thanks.
Is that a mod? Punk? *ch'ckk
But the point is simple. Mine that is. God, may not be true, but that still won't tell us much. It won't tell us to enjoy life. Or hate it. Then again, who needs to be told why when we experience these things anyways.
Post by: Toady One on December 05, 2012, 08:57:53 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 05, 2012, 09:05:33 pm
I'd certainly stand with you there, Fenrir. That third clause wasn't a requirement for anything, but just what I'd consider truth. Without Christ's Crucifixion, the only way to achieve salvation is by being perfect. He opened the door, but I don't think knowing that He opened it is a requirement for entry.That still leaves us misunderstanding each other; we agree that faith in Christ shouldn’t be a requirement, but I can’t see why any sacrifice needed to happen at all. Nailing a man to a cross as a prerequisite for offering salvation is a complete non-sequitur.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 05, 2012, 09:09:50 pm
Anyway, you could argue any ritual is a non-sequitor, if you really wanted. What good does animal sacrifice do?
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 09:11:28 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on December 05, 2012, 09:11:54 pm
Post by: Descan on December 05, 2012, 09:18:54 pm
Post by: Rolepgeek on December 05, 2012, 09:20:17 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 05, 2012, 09:29:47 pm
My understanding is that Christ was the first and only truly perfect person; THAT is what gave him the power to take upon the sins of the world (along with being, ya know, God's son and all that). The rest of his life (crucifixion/etc) were symbolic at best.“Taking on the sins of the world,” doesn’t make any sense, and it does not matter who the sacrifice is. When I talk about my sins, I don’t mean things that I carry around and put down and give to other people. They are things I did. Jesus being nailed to a cross didn’t change that.
Post by: Ogdibus on December 05, 2012, 09:36:02 pm
My understanding is that Christ was the first and only truly perfect person; THAT is what gave him the power to take upon the sins of the world (along with being, ya know, God's son and all that). The rest of his life (crucifixion/etc) were symbolic at best.Jesus was only as perfect as he needed to be... oh, wait...
Anyway, you could argue any ritual is a non-sequitor, if you really wanted. What good does animal sacrifice do?I found this. It looks like it's very dependent on religion and context, and agreement doesn't always exist within a religion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice) I would have thought of it as either a bribe, or a "greeting card", otherwise.
Regarding, the sacrifice of Christ, it sounds like he atones for the sins of others. Accepting him is accepting that he atones for your sins? I'm not Christian, so I'm not very familiar with the idea. It limits my ability to understand.
Post by: Graknorke on December 06, 2012, 04:03:10 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 06, 2012, 07:28:53 am
From what I gathered from 4 years in a Catholic school, the deal with Jesus is that Yahweh is vengeful (but also all-loving), and Jesus is unconditionally loving. If you believe in Jesus then he vouches you into heaven and out of eternal torment.
Then how does your school explain the Trinity thingy?
Post by: Descan on December 06, 2012, 08:01:45 am
Post by: kaijyuu on December 06, 2012, 01:09:27 pm
Post by: Helgoland on December 06, 2012, 09:10:22 pm
I think it depends on your concept of sin - I could imagine that back when christianity was developing their view of sin was much less 'action' oriented and much more 'state-of-mind' oriented.My understanding is that Christ was the first and only truly perfect person; THAT is what gave him the power to take upon the sins of the world (along with being, ya know, God's son and all that). The rest of his life (crucifixion/etc) were symbolic at best.“Taking on the sins of the world,” doesn’t make any sense, and it does not matter who the sacrifice is. When I talk about my sins, I don’t mean things that I carry around and put down and give to other people. They are things I did. Jesus being nailed to a cross didn’t change that.
Mormonism has them as three separate people.Well, they're heathens anyway. Or at least batshit crazy :P
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 07, 2012, 01:29:00 am
I'm not talking about helgoland right there. I see the :P. It's mostly earlier stuff.
Post by: Micro102 on December 07, 2012, 04:04:36 pm
Post by: Reelya on December 07, 2012, 04:22:33 pm
The only anti-Raelian criticism i can find is that they have orgies, and that could just be prudishness. They are a big bunch of UFO-believing free-love hippies if you ask me.
Post by: Owlbread on December 07, 2012, 04:34:12 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on December 07, 2012, 05:05:13 pm
Orgies are fine as long as they're all consenting.And proper precautions are taken for STDs/unwanted pregnancies/etc.
Post by: Strife26 on December 07, 2012, 06:14:27 pm
Orgies are fine as long as they're all consenting.And proper precautions are taken for STDs/unwanted pregnancies/etc.
I'll just play advocate some more and argue as long as everyone is informed and consenting, they have ever right to be as unsafe as they'd like. After all, if I don't have the right to screw my own life up, what rights do I have?
Post by: kaijyuu on December 07, 2012, 06:20:07 pm
I'd say any religion (or any group, really) that organizes orgies has the responsibility to either prevent those things or make damn sure everyone knows exactly what they're getting into. They'd be negligent otherwise.
Post by: Strife26 on December 07, 2012, 06:25:21 pm
Damn. I must be more tired than I thought, I've got no counterpoint at this point. :|
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 12:25:15 am
Maybe we should demand stickers on all raelian... churches? Orgy colosseums? that go like this:
Raelian Orgy Colosseum
May contain STDs
May contain STDs
Post by: Fenrir on December 08, 2012, 12:56:13 am
Post by: Bdthemag on December 08, 2012, 12:58:20 am
Post by: Owlbread on December 08, 2012, 10:05:46 am
I don’t think orgies are at all like gladiatorial combat. Even the Raelian ones.
That's not to say that you couldn't combine the two, if consensual. It could be very entertaining. For some... Yes.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 08, 2012, 11:21:44 am
Clearly we must warn and make sure people know the dangers of orgies, after all how would they know if they were going to get an STD? I demand an "STD and Orgies" awareness campaign to make sure these dangers are more obvious to the common orgy-goer.I'd prefer such groups used proper preventative measures (putting the responsibility on the group, not the individual members). No awareness campaign needed, just pressure and regulation.
(yes I know you were being facetious, but I wanted to give a serious response anyway~)
Eww. No. >.< Never mix sex with violence, please :(I don’t think orgies are at all like gladiatorial combat. Even the Raelian ones.
That's not to say that you couldn't combine the two. It could be very entertaining. For some. Yes.
Post by: Helgoland on December 08, 2012, 12:02:08 pm
Hey, how about consensual stuff?Eww. No. >.< Never mix sex with violence, please :(I don’t think orgies are at all like gladiatorial combat. Even the Raelian ones.
That's not to say that you couldn't combine the two. It could be very entertaining. For some. Yes.
Post by: Owlbread on December 08, 2012, 12:21:23 pm
Post by: Darvi on December 08, 2012, 07:36:51 pm
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 07:50:42 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 08, 2012, 07:59:32 pm
How'd an atheism/religion thread turn into a sex/fight thread!?Well, I dunno about some of the other religions, but as someone who read the Old Testament over quite a few times...
Better question: why hasn't it happened earlier? *shot*
That said, Christianity is not, thankfully, a giant fight-orgy. More of a love-orgy. Without STDs. And everyone is sorta married.
So yeah. Sex/love is more fun than sex/fight. (Man, if my church put that out in front, we'd probably see a steep increase in attendance. I need to go e-mail my pastor.)
Post by: Micro102 on December 08, 2012, 08:22:06 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2012, 08:27:05 pm
Post by: Reelya on December 08, 2012, 08:50:12 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on December 08, 2012, 10:12:05 pm
Wow, the estimates very so much, i can't help but think that there are more than 2.4%. but Atheism is highly stigmatized in USA, so people don't put that choice down. Most estimates I've seen have said about 9-15%
This, so much. Speaking from personal experience, in certain parts of the country you just plain do not admit to anything and politely nod your head when it comes to religious matters unless you want to be near-constantly arguing with or trying to avoid true believers. That aside, there's a decent chunk of "Christians" of younger generations who don't believe and only go along with it because of family tradition, more than I think are represented by the "Nothing in particular" grouping.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 08, 2012, 10:17:46 pm
My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.
Post by: Flying Dice on December 08, 2012, 10:24:43 pm
I live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.
My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.
Most of it is less outwardly aggressive, more "I don't understand how anyone could live without god" etc. etc., but when you hear it from two thirds of the people you interact with on a meaning full level. :|
They could always have assumed that you meant agnostic theism (as I've seen quite a few people assume that that was the entirety of agnosticism).
Post by: Thecard on December 08, 2012, 10:35:48 pm
I live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.Well, there's whatsisname, that famous philosopher or whatever? I really should remember his name.
My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.
Anyways, he said in a utopian society you could believe in whatever religion you wanted, as long as you had a religion. His reasoning was that people who believe they will be judged divinely will be much nicer than people who think this is all there is.
Basically, think of it like the real world and the virtual world. Most of us can be dicks online because there's no real danger. But in the real world, there are consequences.
But, this works the other way too. If you think this life doesn't matter, you may be an asshole because meh, it's just prison.
That's some religions. In Christianity, this life does matter though. No unrepentant asshats in Paradise.
So really, it doesn't do much. Whatsisface was kinda wrong. Just thought I'd bring up that point of view. Some people do have trouble with understanding you don't believe in any god at all, but some actually have a logical reason. Well, logical doesn't mean it's correct.
(Man, discussion while off my ADD meds is hard. I have to re-read my posts.)
Post by: Starver on December 08, 2012, 11:20:03 pm
That's not tired, that's convinced."Scientifically Tenuous Deities"? ;)
Maybe we should demand stickers on all raelian... churches? Orgy colosseums? that go like this:Raelian Orgy Colosseum
May contain STDs
Post by: Strife26 on December 09, 2012, 01:22:49 am
Post by: Glowcat on December 09, 2012, 01:27:00 am
Isn't that redundant? I mean, having faith in something kinda requires that it be unverifiable, no?
I wish. There exists stubborn denial even in the face of reality at times because somebody just needs to believe in whatever so badly that they don't give a damn about the facts.
Post by: Thecard on December 09, 2012, 01:49:18 am
Isn't that redundant? I mean, having faith in something kinda requires that it be unverifiable, no?You'd think so, but I've met people who think otherwise. One famous philosopher, whose name I've forgotten as well, said "Faith and reason cannot contradict" and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Some people do disagree though. For them, science is the opposite of religion.
And out of the people I've met who think that, none have been scientists or pastors. And over half are atheist. Not... At all sure how that part happened. It is a very small percent of people I know overall though.
Post by: Hiiri on December 09, 2012, 02:26:56 am
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 04:17:26 am
Sounds like Marx in pro-religion :DI live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.Well, there's whatsisname, that famous philosopher or whatever? I really should remember his name.
My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.
Anyways, he said in a utopian society you could believe in whatever religion you wanted, as long as you had a religion. His reasoning was that people who believe they will be judged divinely will be much nicer than people who think this is all there is.
"Religion is opium for the people. Everyone likes opium, right?"
Seriously though, that could be Plato. At least it would fit in with his idea of the state (totalitarian, before you ask, but meant to be nice), and the general attitude towards religion among intellectuals/the ruling class in ancient Greece.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: alway on December 09, 2012, 04:55:02 am
Except this is another case of vague, pseudo-intellectual, philosophical bullshit. Coming up with a hypothesis is all fine and dandy, but when you don't go beyond that point and then declare 'this is how it is,' you are wrong, regardless of whether your conclusion is correct or not. With an actual analysis of crime data, you will find it is more accurate to say that outside of any demographic differences (self-identifying atheists tend to be more well off than the general population, and so have lower associated crime rates, and similar correlations), the actual effect religion or non-religion has is nonexistent.I live in a pretty religious area, but I've never heard anti-atheist junk here. The absolute worst I've heard is people expressing that everyone should believe in something religious, because mumble mumble religion is just somehow inherently good or something.Well, there's whatsisname, that famous philosopher or whatever? I really should remember his name.
My parents took my being agnostic easy. Waaaay better than taking my being bi.
Anyways, he said in a utopian society you could believe in whatever religion you wanted, as long as you had a religion. His reasoning was that people who believe they will be judged divinely will be much nicer than people who think this is all there is.
Basically, think of it like the real world and the virtual world. Most of us can be dicks online because there's no real danger. But in the real world, there are consequences.
But, this works the other way too. If you think this life doesn't matter, you may be an asshole because meh, it's just prison.
That's some religions. In Christianity, this life does matter though. No unrepentant asshats in Paradise.
So really, it doesn't do much. Whatsisface was kinda wrong. Just thought I'd bring up that point of view. Some people do have trouble with understanding you don't believe in any god at all, but some actually have a logical reason. Well, logical doesn't mean it's correct.
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 05:19:05 am
Post by: Bdthemag on December 09, 2012, 05:47:18 am
There's another argumant for religion (or at least organized religion) that goes along similar lines though: Religion can be a tool for keeping people in a social context, especially in our industrialized/post-industrialization society, giving them some of that village/community feeling that is mostly absent in large cities. Opium for the masses, as it were, but in a good sort of way.There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.
Post by: Micro102 on December 09, 2012, 11:02:12 am
Post by: fqllve on December 09, 2012, 12:07:53 pm
There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.I wouldn't argue that, if anything it's more important because we're so physically disconnected (and perhaps even surrounded by a buffer of anonymity) it can be hard or nearly impossible to empathize. And there aren't many things that create the feeling of a community better than a religion does.
If I had to argue against it, it'd be that it's a bit goofy to have to believe in something so anthropocentric and supernatural just to get a feeling of community.
Post by: Thecard on December 09, 2012, 12:49:41 pm
There's another argumant for religion (or at least organized religion) that goes along similar lines though: Religion can be a tool for keeping people in a social context, especially in our industrialized/post-industrialization society, giving them some of that village/community feeling that is mostly absent in large cities. Opium for the masses, as it were, but in a good sort of way.That's a very Machiavellian approach.
There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.There are other ways to do everything. But I would argue that we need to feel like a part of a large community in modern life. Sure, it can be in other ways than religion, but we don't like being alone. Even loners have groups where they get together and feel sorry for themselves and each other.
Post by: Helgoland on December 09, 2012, 01:50:12 pm
Back in the 19th and early 20th century that role (at least in Germany) was assumed by various political organizations as well as by the church - in urban areas the unions and (left) parties (like the communists and also the SPD, the social democrats) had athletics groups (Turnvereine in german), youth organizations, even paramilitary groups. Those later came in handy during the Weimar Republic, when the Nazis too had the SA.There are plenty of ways to get that overall "Community Feeling", and even then you can argue the need to be apart of some kind of large community is less important to most people in modern day life.There are other ways to do everything. But I would argue that we need to feel like a part of a large community in modern life. Sure, it can be in other ways than religion, but we don't like being alone. Even loners have groups where they get together and feel sorry for themselves and each other.
(We once had a caricature in school from the time. It read: "It has been decreed that from now on every demonstration will have to bring its own hearse.")
Wow, I did kind of a drift there :D
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2012, 04:50:33 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-sPB5dh_E&list=PL975FB7124770C03E&index=68 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-sPB5dh_E&list=PL975FB7124770C03E&index=68)
Post by: Graknorke on December 18, 2012, 07:04:37 pm
Because disregarding them would be calling God fallible in that he wrote an incorrect book. And omniscient omnipotent gods don't make mistakes.Despite what Dan Brown would have you think. women are not denigrated in the New Testament[.]In fact, wasn't Pauline celibacy used as a form of proto-feminism?
Honestly, my oft-asked question is why does Christianity feel the need to retain the Old Testament when it is so vastly different from their main book? I think it only ends up hurting their positions.
Post by: fqllve on December 18, 2012, 07:11:54 pm
But Christians don't even follow the OT to the degree Jesus did. D:
Post by: Graknorke on December 18, 2012, 07:25:44 pm
Or is it just the fact that Jesus himself followed the OT that makes it so?That's what I thought. Either OT Yahweh was right, or Jesus was right; when you get to separating the OT and NT. And seeing as Jesus talks about Old Yahweh like he exists, it kind of makes it difficult to separate the two.
Post by: Thecard on December 18, 2012, 10:16:41 pm
But doesn't the existence of other Abrahamic traditions do the very same thing? After all, the fact that Christians don't recognize the Quran doesn't suggest the infallibility of God, despite the fact that's the very same god. Or is it just the fact that Jesus himself followed the OT that makes it so?That's the thing. Most Christians say that Muslim's worship a different God. They don't. Saying that is like saying the Jews worship a different God. All three worship the same God, but Muslims believe Mohammed was a prophet, and Christians believe Christ is God's son.
But Christians don't even follow the OT to the degree Jesus did. D:
Jews are just kinda cynical. :P
But the books are written by men, not by God. They are inspired by him, yes, but he isn't really penning or dictating. I believe Jesus is more correct than Moses.
That does not, however, mean that we should disregard the Old Testament. It's important, and tells a story.
Post by: fqllve on December 18, 2012, 10:56:26 pm
Especially, like you said, the books were merely inspired by God, it seems easy to distance yourself from it. I know Jesus said something to the effect of "I come not to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it," but I know I could do some verbal legwork and say that fulfillment has satisfied the commandments and they no longer need apply. I'm pretty sure I've seen something similar done before.
Post by: Thecard on December 19, 2012, 01:13:08 am
Jesus said the laws could really be summed up as: love God as the only god, and don't be a dick to others.
'Course, I'm paraphrasin' here.
But yeah, I don't actually follow the laws Moses established, I follow the laws Jesus gave us. The two are just pretty much the exact same thing.
This isn't an entirely shared belief among Christians, of course. I honestly believe I could not find another person with my exact same beliefs, no matter how hard I tried. He speaks to us in different ways.
Post by: Micro102 on December 19, 2012, 02:41:30 am
You don't follow Jesus' laws, you follow laws you like and that fit your idea of a good society. And you should do that.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 04:10:44 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 04:23:13 am
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 04:25:48 am
Outside europe, is christianity being replaced by what came before it?
Is it anywhere?
Christianity is growing in Africa and Asia. In the Americas it's still going strong, there is just a shift away from catholicism to evangelical cults in South America.
In Europe and the former Soviet Union it is mostly replaced by atheism or non-religiousness (not the same thing). Neo-pagans are just a tiny tiny minority, probably because most neo-pagan movements lack any sort of historical sources and because (at least in Europe) people don't exchange one superstition for another so easily.
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 04:30:27 am
The laws Jesus gave us? Which ones? The one telling you to not keep any savings because god will provide everything you need? The one that says do not use idols? Or how about how he says that all the laws of the old testament still stand, which advocates slavery and intolerance.Jesue never says they still stand, he says that the old cove net is replace by the new covenant, but the idea still stands basically
You don't follow Jesus' laws, you follow laws you like and that fit your idea of a good society. And you should do that.
some things change (No need for sacrifices, foods are now clean, we are now called to be SERVENTS of evrey onbe else and be kind to all etc *)
*thats the BASI of how most read in to it, not evrey one dose.
Btw slavrey back then is VASTLY diffident form now days and the OT even tells masters to TAKE care of their slaves, and not to treat them bad
Once again many pepole read "wome submit to your husbands, dont read the next part that says man do the same and to love their wifes and treat them fair
they see slavrey dont see where God pretty much makes them pepole who live at your house you take care of and they follow your orders.
Post by: Helgoland on December 19, 2012, 04:33:32 am
there is just a shift away from catholicism to evangelical cults in South AmericaDamn heretics :P
Seriously though: I believe having a centralized and relatively uniform religion is beneficial for the state and for the people - if they must have a religion (and they must, just look at the history of the USSR), it should, well, be kept under control.
I'd rather have as leadership one senile person in Rome than a hundred little mad autocratic gurus.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 04:36:29 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 04:38:08 am
Sorry, I'm not even going to pretend its not going to be a hard habit to break, i just did it twice already.
How would you put emphasis then?
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 04:42:24 am
Seriously though: I believe having a centralized and relatively uniform religion is beneficial for the state and for the people
There is the theory that this is one reason for the difference in religion between Europe and the US. If the religion is as institutionalized and mainstream as in Europe, you have to be anti-church if you are in any way anti-establishment or against the current authority. Most european states have much less separation of church and state than the US has, which results in largely secular people, while the US has a very secular constitution with more religious people.
Actually I see how that benefits the people ;).
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 04:43:41 am
Btw slavrey back then is VASTLY diffident form now days and the OT even tells masters to TAKE care of their slaves, and not to treat them badWow, I'm not really the kind of person to criticize someone's spelling, but presumably you're a Christian and you misspelled Jesus's name. Please consider using spellcheck.
Once again many pepole read "wome submit to your husbands, dont read the next part that says man do the same and to love their wifes and treat them fair
they see slavrey dont see where God pretty much makes them pepole who live at your house you take care of and they follow your orders.
Really, that is an extremely idealized view of slavery. They were still seen as property, and they still had no freedom. The master was advised by the book to take care of them, but that doesn't mean they were actually treated that way. The best degree of protection the OT gave was that a slave who was sufficiently injured by his master was set free. Reread that, because that is not an ideal situation by any means.
I mean, it's not like we sit here and say "You know indentured servitude really wasn't all that bad."
How would you put emphasis then?Italics, -hyphens-, or /slashes/.
Although I find caps to be acceptable for heavy emphasis.
Post by: Helgoland on December 19, 2012, 04:54:01 am
(Why didn't I use Capslock for that? Hmmm...)
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 04:57:20 am
Quote
Really, that is an extremely idealized view of slavery. They were still seen as property, and they still had no freedom.Thats where your wrong, they had quite a lot of freedom, if you followed the OT, they pretty much where a work force andonly a work force for osmeone.
Quote
The master was advised by the book to take care of them, but that doesn't mean they were actually treated that way.we are not talking how people did things, but what the book says to do.
its quite clear even those who follow it admit they do not follow it very well.
Quote
The best degree of protection the OT gave was that a slave who was sufficiently injured by his master was set free.there is WAY more to it
they say that because you are Not opposed to Hurt the slave to bad, just like it was okay to punish kids but not hurt them to bad back then, like how spanking at one time was okay.
You will find slavery was not bad by the world, they where property yes, but so where the owners, to what ever king ruled at the time, so it was not new
Would you say it was bad to be ruled by a king? if not then thats what it meant to have a master according to the bible
did they follow it to the letter? heck no, but the slavery the OT wanted was "nice" you hired a work force, they worked for you and you took care of them, no diffident then a king, are being the subjects of a king bad?
Quote
I mean, it's not like we sit here and say "You know indentured servitude really wasn't all that bad."But this was diffidence, even back then look at egypt, we are finding more and more the whips and chains of slavery did not happen as bad as it seemed, and many slaves where treated as a family member, its well recorded if you study history that slavers where just a bit under employs, but treated as family or at least treated well enough
It was not whips chains and beatings at all, that came later.
It was more of the way a king treated his subjects, which yes could be bad but could be good as well
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 05:08:11 am
Would you say it was bad to be ruled by a king? if not then thats what it meant to have a master according to the bibleI think you should check out what the quality of life was like for a Middle Ages villein. Yes, I would say that was pretty damn bad.
Quote
did they follow it to the letter? heck no, but the slavery the OT wanted was "nice" you hired a work force, they worked for you and you took care of them, no diffident then a king, are being the subjects of a king bad?Do you understand the kind of labor that was reserved for slaves? Manual agriculture is back-breaking and construction projects were even worse. Being forced to do something like that with no profit to yourself is pretty terrible, yes.
Quote
But this was diffidence, even back then look at egypt, we are finding more and more the whips and chains of slavery did not happen as bad as it seemed, and many slaves where treated as a family member, its well recorded if you study history that slavers where just a bit under employs, but treated as family or at least treated well enoughYou realize that the Israelites also had hired servants, right? They were treated differently from slaves, which is why they were different and had different rules that applied to them.
Quote
It was not whips chains and beatings at all, that came later.The fact that they had to make an injunction that stated a significantly injured slave needed to be set free suggests that, yes, beatings weren't as rare as your post implies.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 05:16:30 am
You will find slavery was not bad by the world, they where property yes, but so where the owners, to what ever king ruled at the time, so it was not new
That is complete nonsense. If you were a roman citizen you were the property of no one, but you could kill your slaves (and your wife and children) if you wanted to.
The idea that people were property of a king is also completely inaccurate. There are much later things like thralldom in medieval feudalism, but that affects only landowners, not necessarily nobility, and thralls were arguably still more free than slaves.
Slaves in antiquity were somewhat better off than slaves in the US, but could still be sold or killed which is kind of bad if you think about it.
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 05:24:17 am
Quote
I think you should check out what the quality of life was like for a Middle Ages villein. Yes, I would say that was pretty damn bad.My point was it was not "bad" just that it was the norm back then in many ways.
And middle ages do not = Egypt times in anyway.
Quote
Do you understand the kind of labor that was reserved for slaves? Manual agriculture is back-breaking and construction projects were even worse. Being forced to do something like that with no profit to yourself is pretty terrible, yes.You do know that MOST presents could only get those type of jobs as well?
it was par for the course.
Also payment was a weird thing, they did not get paid no, but their needs got taken care of, many presents had it worse
Quote
You realize that the Israelites also had hired servants, right? They were treated differently from slaves, which is why they were different and had different rules that applied to them.
Quote
The fact that they had to make an injunction that stated a significantly injured slave needed to be set free suggests that, yes, beatings weren't as rare as your post implies.I disagree, the bible also had rules on what not to eat, do you think that means it was needed?
God posted many rules, like sleeping with your sister, step sister and brother etc
they did happen to be sure but it dont make it frequent
Again I'm sure, like kings, there where many bad owners, but like kings there where also good ones.
the good ones are what the bibel says to be, so when you cite slavry pepole think of "evil" but this fortm was no more evil then a king owing evrey one in his kidnom
Remember the only thing required for slavery to = slavery is that you are "owned" by someone, nothing else is needed.
I'm sure many people lost their cool and beat their slaves, just like many lost their cool and beat their freinds\mothers by your logic since there are rules it means beating your friends and mothers where the norm?
the base point is study ancient slavery, dont use now days as its not the same
Quote
That is complete nonsense. If you were a roman citizen you were the property of no one, but you could kill your slaves (and your wife and children) if you wanted to.We are referring to what the bible says, i do not deny there where bad ones
The idea that people were property of a king is also completely inaccurate. There are much later things like thralldom in medieval feudalism, but that affects only landowners, not necessarily nobility, and thralls were arguably still more free than slaves.
Slaves in antiquity were somewhat better off than slaves in the US, but could still be sold or killed which is kind of bad if you think about it.
how about you guys show me some proof that slavery was as bad as you make it out to be?
Many have had this augment with me before, because they act like slavery has not changed it has.
Study up on it, Rome was bad yes, but Rome also did this to Free Jews as well and Christina and heck the entire population any time they took over, they were conquers, its what they did.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 05:27:37 am
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 05:31:05 am
Remember the only thing required for slavery to = slavery is that you are "owned" by someone, nothing else is needed.
If that is not bad enough for you, I don't know what is.
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 05:44:58 am
Quote
If that is not bad enough for you, I don't know what is.Whats so bad about being owend? its just a world in this case, in some cases you can say a parent "owns" a kid, pepole would not say it that way, but it very much is the same thing
kids work and dont get paid (always)
the parents care for them, provide them shelter and are to give them good life's
thats what slavry was in the bible and a lot of places back then
if the idea of "owning" some one magically makes it bad then all of government is bad
could they abuse the power? yes then its bad, same for a government, same for parents, same for anything like this
Put shortly, say someone is a maid, they live in the person house and all that
thats the base idea of slavery back then, would you say thats bad?
owning" them dont make it bad, it just meant they where "their resonabilty"
(Kind of like how a kid can be adopted etc and often you have to pay money to adopt a kid)
the base idea of "owning" os not bad, kingdoms where built on it, would you say all kindomgs all evil and none what so ever good?
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 05:48:51 am
Quote
My point was it was not "bad" just that it was the norm back then in many ways.Just because it was the norm doesn't mean it wasn't bad. It was bad, and I'm not condemning the book because I realize it's a product of the period in which it was written, however, it isn't right to condone slavery, even if it wasn't that bad by slavery's standards. Slavery is bad. Period.
Quote
You do know that MOST presents could only get those type of jobs as well?Other peasants had the ability to do other jobs, such as raising livestock, or owning land, or even being a merchant. But it turns out being a peasant was also bad, and generally I'm not ok with someone having such poor quality of life.
it was par for the course.
Also payment was a weird thing, they did not get paid no, but their needs got taken care of, many presents had it worse
Also, I'm fairly certain that in most societies during antiquity used primarily slave labor for their mines. Because that is basically the only way you can get someone to do that.
And even if you were merely a landowner, your prospects were still better than "subsistence farming and no more." That was your land to profit from, to expand, and to hire help for. A slave didn't have any of these options. A slave had no options. Was all slavery beatings? No of course not. Sometimes artisans were made into slaves and there's no way in hell someone treated an artisan poorly, free or not. But (a) Not being free sucks. It sucks hard. Doesn't matter that life sucked regardless, slavery sucked that bad and worse. Sometimes only a bit worse, but worse. (b) How well a slave was treated was probably directly proportionate to what job he did. Artisans and servants were probably treated well, just like some slaves even in the US were. Field workers, and especially miners were probably treated less so, because you're already having them do the worst possible labor, it's very dehumanizing.
Quote
I'm sure many people lost their cool and beat their slaves, just like many lost their cool and beat their freinds\mothers by your logic since there are rules it means beating your friends and mothers where the norm?Did I say "was the norm?" I said, "not as rare as your post suggests" which means something completely different. My logic is: "there was a very specific rule which implies that the thing happened frequently enough to justify the rule." You said it wasn't at all chains and beatings, which makes it sound like it didn't happen. It did happen. It's inevitable when you see someone like property.
edit: Also, please stop suggesting I and the other posters are ignorant of history. Not really the case.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 05:49:19 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 05:57:20 am
\BADDDDDD
Slavrey where you give them a job tell them what to do but care for them )military any one? they give you a job they tell you what to do and they care for you.)
ok
Put it this way take away "own", is this bad?
provide shelter, for them and family, care, and what not, while they work for you (basically working for place to lice and what not)
I"VE made deals like that, where I'll be at someones house while I work the fields, US has places like that where many people acapte shleter as payment for labor (Feilds anyone?)
IMO the idea of "owning" is not as bad as we make it out to be, many slaves DID have freedoms, true not all could pick jobs but they could start family's, they could do stuff that presents could
they could not leave true, but many places don't allow people to leave even now days when they are "free"
Basscily I dont see whats wrong with it, other then having the "owned" tag on me I've lived that way a lot, its not bad, and some times better.
what happen to the blacks was bad real bad but that was not the slavery I'm talking about
The slaves I am lived up to standards and in many case surpass the pessents
if you want to prove your not "ignorant" of history then back it up
you keep actting like slavery has been the same and slaves could not do this or that but where is your proof?
prove it and then I'll admit your right on it. I've had this talk before, I've done study on slavery in ancient times
By the way ere is a qoute
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sirrobhitch.suffolk/portland%20state%20university%20greek%20civilization%20home%20page%20v2/docs/7/kirsten.html
"Slavery played a major role in ancient Greek civilization. Slaves could be found everywhere. They worked not only as domestic servants, but as factory workers, shopkeepers, mineworkers, farmworkers and as ship's crewmembers. There may have been as many, if not more, slaves than free people in ancient Greece. It is difficult for historians to determine exactly how many slaves there were during these times, because many did not appear any different from the poorer Greek citizens."
a slave could be a shopkeeper etc
"It is surprising to note that the police force in ancient Athens was made up mainly of slaves. Even the clerks at the treasury office were slaves."
Yes some jobs WHERe bad how ever
"Not all forms of slavery in ancient Greece were as tolerable as that of the domestic servant. The life of a mineworker or ship's crewmember was a life of misery and danger. These people usually did not live long because of the grueling work and dangerous conditions of their work. Often those forced into these conditions were those condemned to death for committing crimes because it was understood that they wouldn't live very long under these circumstances."
was it perfect? no, but the same could be said about those who worked and whewr free.
"Webster 1969, p43). Slaves worked mainly in domestic roles, though it was not uncommon for them to become tutors or carers for the children of the household (ibid., p46). Privately owned slaves generally received payment from their masters, whilst state-owned slaves received their clothing, as well as a daily ‘ration allowance’"
So they where even paid!
"Individual treatment was dependent on the leniency of the owner, though it may be assumed that treatment was in most cases fair, due to slaves’ partial protection under Athenian law (see later discussion). State-owned slaves also had the opportunity, depending on their education, to rise to relatively high positions within the community, such as secretaries, bankers, and law enforcement (Bowman 2007, p34). Often, these slaves worked alongside the citizens and metics (resident foreigners), under the same conditions — the only difference being a detraction in their salary (Murray 1986, p223)."
working the same as them, paid, could get high places of power...
Hell I WANT that job (that was me shouting want)
In some ways I'd have a better life
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 05:58:57 am
if the idea of "owning" some one magically makes it bad then all of government is bad
Before anyone calls it, doesn't look like a troll to me. Nevertheless, don't bother with him. Let him start thinking.
If his government decides to have a sale on trolls, he might start to think. Until then he can continue believing.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 19, 2012, 05:59:15 am
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 06:08:45 am
Quote
And even if you were merely a landowner, your prospects were still better than "subsistence farming and no more." That was your land to profit from, to expand, and to hire help for. A slave didn't have any of these options. A slave had no options. Was all slavery beatings? No of course not. Sometimes artisans were made into slaves and there's no way in hell someone treated an artisan poorly, free or not. But (a) Not being free sucks. It sucks hard. Doesn't matter that life sucked regardless, slavery sucked that bad and worse. Sometimes only a bit worse, but worse. (b) How well a slave was treated was probably directly proportionate to what job he did. Artisans and servants were probably treated well, just like some slaves even in the US were. Field workers, and especially miners were probably treated less so, because you're already having them do the worst possible labor, it's very dehumanizing.This part of my post is as balanced a view you are going to get on slavery from me. (b) is especially important.
You are completely misinterpreting my post. You are reading in comparisons to modern slavery that just aren't there. I'm well aware, just from the OT laws, that it wasn't as bad as modern slavery particularly because Hebrews themselves could be made slaves. Obviously the insane degrees of dehumanization couldn't have occurred for those slaves at least, not to mention that there was slavery for debt and slavery as punishment for crimes. Also, the slaves, even non-Hebrew, were still ethnically far more close than the African slaves were to the colonists. So of course I'm not saying that. I don't know why you think I am.
But being able to start a family is small compensation for the lack of other freedoms. Just because they were able to do some things doesn't make up for the loss of what else they had.
But really, it sounds like you're just ok with being a slave. However, I am not. I like all the freedoms I have, and in fact I'd like more. If you're fine with being a slave, ok. That's fine and your choice. But even without being beaten, even with being perfectly taken care of, I vastly prefer what I have and I vastly prefer any amount of freedom I can get and abhor having it restricted. Do not tell me I am ignorant of history because that's true.
edit: Ok, that link to the Slavery in Ancient Greece that says slavery was mostly for household servants? Those were Athenian slaves. Why wouldn't you expect Athens to treat their slaves well? Read about the Spartan Helots, who were ritualistically murdered.
Post by: Hiiri on December 19, 2012, 12:02:42 pm
... it is mostly replaced by atheism or non-religiousness (not the same thing).
Please explain, I don't seem to understand this bit. Pardon my ignorance.
Post by: Helgoland on December 19, 2012, 12:17:30 pm
Occultism, alternative medicine (not technically a religion, but it fulfills the same basic needs, I guess), sects and cults... a worrying development.
But being able to start a family is small compensation for the lack of other freedoms. Just because they were able to do some things doesn't make up for the loss of what else they had.I'm always a bit wary of this 'freedom fetishism' (notice the ''s). What additional specific freedoms do you want/lack? (Assuming you live ina western country, of course.)
But really, it sounds like you're just ok with being a slave. However, I am not. I like all the freedoms I have, and in fact I'd like more. If you're fine with being a slave, ok. That's fine and your choice. But even without being beaten, even with being perfectly taken care of, I vastly prefer what I have and I vastly prefer any amount of freedom I can get and abhor having it restricted. Do not tell me I am ignorant of history because that's true.
A family was basically the ancient version of an old-age pension, just as it still is in some parts of Africa - having a family was worth a lot more back then, and even today I at least would be willing to sacrifice a lot for that possibility. And just stop and think for a second: Would you rather be free and starving (Starving! As in No food!), or fed, clothed and doing some job under acceptable conditions? (Obviously not talking about household servants here and not the slaves on gallleys or in the mines.)
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 04:46:30 pm
I'm always a bit wary of this 'freedom fetishism' (notice the ''s). What additional specific freedoms do you want/lack? (Assuming you live ina western country, of course.)I don't have a list, but I bet there are choices I don't have, or are discouraged so strongly that I might as well not have them, that wouldn't hurt anyone if I did. I don't support freedom at the cost of the well-being of others, if that's what you think I'm saying.
Quote
A family was basically the ancient version of an old-age pension, just as it still is in some parts of Africa - having a family was worth a lot more back then, and even today I at least would be willing to sacrifice a lot for that possibility. And just stop and think for a second: Would you rather be free and starving (Starving! As in No food!), or fed, clothed and doing some job under acceptable conditions? (Obviously not talking about household servants here and not the slaves on gallleys or in the mines.)If I'm starving though, in antiquity or more recent times, it would generally means there's either a famine (which being a slave isn't going to save me from) or it the conditions I'm living under are so dire and tyrannical that I can hardly be said to have my freedom (ie: ancient China). There are others (such as farm mismanagement or war), but yeah, in those situations, I would rather be free, because then I have the opportunity to better my lot, a slight opportunity in some cases, but I prefer the chance.
Of course, since starvation is rarely a direct consequence of the freedoms you have, I don't see why I need to choose. A landowner would still have a family and one that would presumably take care of them better than an owner, and famine can still affect a slave's owner, and I'm gonna guess you're gonna be a low priority as a slave in those situations.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 19, 2012, 04:51:12 pm
Welcome to third world reality. No real options to better your lot. And free market capitalism isn't exactly tyranicall(or maybe it is, but then it's oposite of it's own ideals.) Not much of a chance to better your lot either.
((What were we talking about, actually.))
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 04:54:57 pm
But I don't know why we're comparing the absolute worst possible situation as a yeoman to the best possible situation as a slave. Is it really surprising that the former is worse? I don't really think it's a useful comparison.
The conversation started with slavery in the Bible.
e: I... dunno why you're bringing free market capitalism into this. I haven't said a word about economic models.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 19, 2012, 05:01:22 pm
Repeat for all relatively low income/ easily exploitable jobs in quite a lot of countries.
* On oh so many levels, they were not.
Edit: Nigeria, currently a democratic state, is one of the examples for the earlier explanation.
Edit 2: It's just an example of how absolute freedom, or increasing freedom isn't always a good thing. Free market capitalism and globalisation are the main examples there. The healthcare systems could be others.
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 05:05:12 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 19, 2012, 05:07:35 pm
Ok. But the most important point is why are we comparing the worst possible situation as a yeoman to the best possible situation as a slave? I'm not seeing how this is an enlightening comparison.It's not the worst possible situation. It's just a counterargument against the idea that more freedom is automatically always better.
((I have absolutely no idea which point I'm defending right now))
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 05:13:39 pm
We're basically ten miles from the topic or more now. :p
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 19, 2012, 05:15:41 pm
.
Post by: Descan on December 19, 2012, 05:50:16 pm
Or whether a created biological sentient creature would mean... anything?
Or uplifted creatures, like a gorilla turned sentient. :3
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 05:53:59 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on December 19, 2012, 05:54:52 pm
Or uplifted creatures, like a gorilla turned sentient. :3Gorillas fit most of the definitions of sentient already.
Have some interesting reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood)
Post by: Descan on December 19, 2012, 05:55:36 pm
Like, the Pope. What'll the pope say? O:
E: Kai, sentient is the wrong word. Vocally communicative, cultural, and (not necessarily but it would make it clearer) a part of human culture. Like a gorilla chart-topper, or a elephant head-of-state.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 19, 2012, 06:02:34 pm
There really isn't much difference between humans and many species of ape, except we're a bit smarter. We're better at gathering, retaining, and spreading knowledge, and that's just been snowballing for the past few thousand years.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 06:08:31 pm
Protestant churches are widely divided and without central authority, so that would be case-by-case.
Orthodox churches are more centralized, but individual Patriarchs would still have their say.
Islam (Sunni and Shiite would probably not be divided on this) is tricky, but as it is a fairly conservative religion overall I'd imagine they'd reject it. On the other hand, the Quran talks about things like Dijinn, so thinking beings besides god and humans isn't unprecedented.
Hinduism and Buddhism would not be phased. Almost everything has a soul already, so more thinking beings are just a product of our technological advancement.
Post by: PanH on December 19, 2012, 06:45:17 pm
The pope accepting AI ?
Galileus theory was only authorized (not accepted) in 1741. It was only accepted along with Darwin's theory in 1979 - 1996.
Even if the Vatican said that alien should be defined as creations of god, the Vatican is also mostly conservative (and rarely lead by someone as smart as JP II).
Post by: Wolfy on December 19, 2012, 06:50:18 pm
It really depends who is in charge of what at the time.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 19, 2012, 06:57:15 pm
... it is mostly replaced by atheism or non-religiousness (not the same thing).
Please explain, I don't seem to understand this bit. Pardon my ignorance.
I guess he means the drift away from organized religion towards a more individualistic, mix-and-match approach to spirituality.
Occultism, alternative medicine (not technically a religion, but it fulfills the same basic needs, I guess), sects and cults... a worrying development.
By non-religiousness I meant a general lack of interest in religion and spirituality, which seems the most widespread attitude. Atheists and agnostics have put some thought into what they (don't) believe, but many people just don't care if there is a god or not and don't seem to think about it much, even if they still are nominally church members (that might be country specific).
Individualistic approaches and weird stuff like esoterics and alternative medicine I see too sometimes, sects, cults and (serious) occultism less so.
Generally there's a drift away from organized religion, people who have left the church don't tend to join another one, like they maybe would in the US, but stay away from organized religion entirely.
Post by: Strife26 on December 19, 2012, 07:55:55 pm
The pope accepting AI ?
Galileus theory was only authorized (not accepted) in 1741. It was only accepted along with Darwin's theory in 1979 - 1996.
Even if the Vatican said that alien should be defined as creations of god, the Vatican is also mostly conservative (and rarely lead by someone as smart as JP II).
That's a pretty bad generalization of the historical stance of the Vatican.
Post by: PanH on December 19, 2012, 08:25:16 pm
That's a pretty bad generalization of the historical stance of the Vatican.
Right. Better than criticizing like that, can you give some constructive examples ?
Post by: Strife26 on December 19, 2012, 08:50:15 pm
In response, Galileo went and claimed that he was speaking certain truth, as well as some very inflammatory statements towards the Church. (I've heard them summarized as "I'm right, the Church is wrong, and the Pope's a dumbass" before.)
And, just to quote wikipedia directly, because I'm kinda lazy and without my real history books,
Quote
The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[137] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorised the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[138] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[139] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[140] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[141]
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 10:07:00 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 19, 2012, 10:39:28 pm
The problem there is that Galileo was right, the Church was wrong, and the Pope wasFTFY No, I'm just kidding.sometimesalways a dumbass.
No, seriously though, fuck him.
Sorry to you guys if this offends you, unless you're the pope. If you are the pope, fuck you.
If you can't tell, I'm not Catholic.
I also think popery is idolatry.
So fuck you, popey.
(... This is what happens when I try to talk about the Catholic church when I'm off meds.
No, no, I'd still say "fuck 'im." I'd just try to say it nicer or something.)
(Naw, screw it. I'd say it any day o' the week. "No king of heaven but Jesus" an' all that.)
P.S.-- I have no idea who the current pope is, nor do I really care to know. The dude himself isn't my problem, it's the position.
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2012, 10:41:34 pm
P.S.-- I have no idea who the current pope is, nor do I really care to know. The dude himself isn't my problem, it's the position.Benedict the 16th, known for promoting tolerance to other faiths and saying that there are times when it is ok to use a condom.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 10:44:19 pm
Which they dragged out of him after five years of him maintaining that condoms must never be used ever, and disseminating this information to impoverished, HIV prevalent, and heavily Catholic countries in southern Africa.P.S.-- I have no idea who the current pope is, nor do I really care to know. The dude himself isn't my problem, it's the position.Benedict the 16th, known for promoting tolerance to other faiths and saying that there are times when it is ok to use a condom.
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2012, 10:46:29 pm
He is still a homophobic asshat (In the most literal way possible) but the fact that he is a little better than all the others gives me hope that maybe the next one will admit that maybe you don't need to be a devout catholic to be a good person...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 10:49:06 pm
The measure of a pope isn't how tolerant he is, it is how much tolerant he is compared to the guy before him.Benedict XVI isn't anywhere near as tolerant or progressive as John Paul II. In fact, Benedict is really conservative.
Post by: Max White on December 19, 2012, 10:50:54 pm
He was a little before my time you see. I mean I remember a time when he was alive, but too young to know much about the pope.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 11:04:14 pm
For one thing, he apologized for almost all the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II) Granted, the Catholic Church then went on to commit new atrocities, but at least he tried.
Post by: Thecard on December 19, 2012, 11:11:10 pm
I still think popery is a greater sin. Any chance he'll apologize for being the pope?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 11:13:38 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 19, 2012, 11:30:34 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 11:32:20 pm
To my knowledge, the Pope does not claim to decide who gets into heaven.
Post by: Thecard on December 19, 2012, 11:34:36 pm
Excommunication
Interdiction
Post by: fqllve on December 19, 2012, 11:38:25 pm
Papal Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Popes are awesome.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2012, 11:39:44 pm
Two words, Hunt:Many forms of Christianity practice some manner of excommunication. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication) Even so, Catholic excommunication does not explicitly bar one from entering heaven, it bars one from the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church.
Excommunication
Interdiction
I certainly do not think the Pope would say excommunicating someone can supersede the will of god as to their final fate.
Post by: Dorten on December 19, 2012, 11:57:01 pm
So, even if excommunication has not been cancelled, the person can still return to the Church body by repenting his sins.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 12:14:51 am
The rituals, like the last rites, are necessary to get into heaven. Also, they aren't seen as Christian any more, so in the pope's eyes he's just damned them.Two words, Hunt:Many forms of Christianity practice some manner of excommunication. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication) Even so, Catholic excommunication does not explicitly bar one from entering heaven, it bars one from the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church.
Excommunication
Interdiction
I certainly do not think the Pope would say excommunicating someone can supersede the will of god as to their final fate.
I highly doubt the pope would say he was superseding God. He is still presuming he can. Denial can't change a statement from true to false or back again. It just don't work that way. There's some story they have about Jesus giving Peter the authority to rule Christendom or something. And no, it isn't in the Bible.
And yeah, I'm not Anabaptist either. I mean, if the Amish want to say someone isn't welcome into their clubhouse, I have no real problem with that, though it is a little bit of a dick move sometimes.
But the pope (or any other denominational leader) saying he can choose who is Christian, and who isn't, is a false prophet.
The pope used to (still does, if I remember right) use excommunication and interdiction to influence secular leaders. Some king or other got frostbite waiting outside a chapel for the pope to let him back into the club. He's recognized as being able to let you back in, or shut you out. You remember that whole thing Jesus was talking about, how the "son of man" was given authority to forgive sins? Yeah, only Jesus can do that. I really don't like the pope saying he can, because he can't.
Even to look at it from the perspectives you offer, it seems amoral and un-Christian to me. God, and God alone, can judge. Man really 'oughta just shut the fuck up. I mean, I think popery is a sin, but I don't think committing a sin is what damns your soul so much as your intent. I would not, could not, say the pope or any of his followers will go to hell.
I am perfectly entitled to say he is wrong and not being a true Christian, though. Mostly because in saying that, I don't think I could damn him.
It's like, I am never going to tell my Islamic friend he is going to hell for not believing in Jesus. He may, but he may not. I don't know what the fuck is going through God's mind, and I really don't have to. It's his job, not mine, and not the pope's.
I think Catholicism and some forms of Protestantism shouldn't (and can't) be generalized as the same thing.
Also, I kinda find it funny that you mistook me for a Catholic. :P What made you think that?
(Okay, technically I'm catholic, but not Catholic. :) There's sort of a difference, before some wise-ass joins the thread to point that out. Little "c" is just another word we can use for Christian fellowship, big "C" is the pope's church.)
Ninja'd? Ah well.
Oh, uh, important thing about Catholics. They believe in an impersonal God, where you have to go through a priest to get forgiveness. That is, to me, the same as popery. I believe the entire point of Christianity is a personal link to God. Anything less of that is less of Christianity.
Guess I probably should've started with that, huh? Would've made this... I dunno, about five sentences long?
Post by: Strife26 on December 20, 2012, 12:28:01 am
Post by: Dorten on December 20, 2012, 12:29:03 am
The rituals, like the last rites, are necessary to get into heaven. Also, they aren't seen as Christian any more, so in the pope's eyes he's just damned them.Not the rituals, but sacraments, which in extraordinary circumstances can be committed without rituals and/or even by God Himself. For example in Orthodox Tradition it is believed, that not christened soldiers, who die defending their Homeland are baptized with their blood. Same goes for early martyrs and so on.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 20, 2012, 12:38:02 am
The rituals, like the last rites, are necessary to get into heaven. Also, they aren't seen as Christian any more, so in the pope's eyes he's just damned them.Once upon a time, but not these days. The current official position of the Roman Catholic Church is very ecumenical and states that anyone who does not freely reject god is not condemned. This, of course, still screws over atheists like myself (not that I really care), but would apply to most anyone whom you would call Christan.
Quote
But the pope (or any other denominational leader) saying he can choose who is Christian, and who isn't, is a false prophet.Not as much as you'd think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church) It happens, rarely, and no one whom it happens to these days seems to care very much.
The pope used to (still does, if I remember right) use excommunication and interdiction to influence secular leaders.
Quote
Some king or other got frostbite waiting outside a chapel for the pope to let him back into the club. He's recognized as being able to let you back in, or shut you out.You're missing a vital part of that story. Here's the thing: If you come to the Pope and honestly ask for reconciliation after being excommunicated? He has to say yes. In the particular story the Pope was stalling inside the chapel because he didn't really want to reconcile the excommunicated king, but he ultimately had no choice in the matter.
Quote
You remember that whole thing Jesus was talking about, how the "son of man" was given authority to forgive sins? Yeah, only Jesus can do that. I really don't like the pope saying he can, because he can't.Excommunication isn't even really about sins. It's being excluded from the church community. You can be sinless and end up excommunicated.
Quote
Also, I kinda find it funny that you mistook me for a Catholic. :P What made you think that?The way you asserted AI is impossible reminded me of Catholic dogmatism on certain subjects.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 01:15:33 am
Spoiler: My mom though... (click to show/hide)
Guess I did. Well, it didn't waste your time if you didn't read it. :D
Ninja'd. Not really surprised.
Quote
You're missing a vital part of that story. Here's the thing: If you come to the Pope and honestly ask for reconciliation after being excommunicated? He has to say yes. In the particular story the Pope was stalling inside the chapel because he didn't really want to reconcile the excommunicated king, but he ultimately had no choice in the matter.I think you may be missing a vital part of what I am saying.
The fact the pope has to say yes. That part. That part is not right. Because the pope has no authority. That's like me saying "Okay Hunt, you can be atheist if you want." Saying that implies I have control over your belief. But I don't. Which is why I'm never going to legitimately say that to someone.
I cannot tell you that you are welcome into heaven because I forgive you. Neither can the pope, though he presumes he can.
That is why I don't like the pope. Because he thinks what he says and thinks actually has an effect on anyone's final destination but his own.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 02:41:51 am
Post by: Criptfeind on December 20, 2012, 03:02:25 am
Post by: Grek on December 20, 2012, 04:42:18 am
Theologically speaking, the Pope does not have the ability to allow or disallow entry into heaven, nor to change divine policy, nor to do... pretty much any of the things Thecard is mad about him doing. The Pope is the person who, in the opinion of the College of Cardinals, is the world's foremost expert on God. According to Catholics, the Pope isn't God and is not allowed to make new dogma. He can only settle disputes about dogma, issue clarifications and weigh in where expert opinion is required.
Interdiction is the Pope (or some other church official) announcing that, in their official opinion, the person or persons being interdicted should not be given sacraments. Usually, this is done because the person is, again, in their official opinion, refusing to admit to or does not seek to be forgiven for one or more sins. This means three things:
A] Because confessing to and seeking forgiveness for sin is a requirement to get into Heaven, the interdicted party does not meet the requirements to be admitted into Heaven upon death.
B] Because confessing to and seeking forgiveness for sin is also a requirement to receive Catholic sacraments from Catholic priests, the interdicted party is not allowed to receive sacraments.
C] Because the entire point of declaring an interdiction is to prevent people who refuse to accept and repent for their sins from receiving sacraments, going to the Pope and telling him that you accept and are sorry for your sins requires him to either A] say that you are lying about being sorry, or B] remove the interdiction, because the original reason for it existing is gone.
Excommunication is the same thing, but also means that you're forbidden from preaching, reading liturgies to the congregation and from serving as a church official.
Post by: Helgoland on December 20, 2012, 05:10:32 am
Oh, uh, important thing about Catholics. They believe in an impersonal God, where you have to go through a priest to get forgiveness. That is, to me, the same as popery. I believe the entire point of Christianity is a personal link to God. Anything less of that is less of Christianity.I'm a Catholic agnostic, and actually a bit offended by that - you misrepresent the Catholic church, you misrepesent the institution of the pope, and you misrepresent the point of christianity.
Last things first: Take a look at this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1899#comic) SMBC. The point of christianity is not the idea of a personal god; the idea is that the laws that are put down are less important than not being a dick. Judaism you might call a lawyer's (no insult intended) religion: You have a set of rules to which you stick, and you're golden. Christianity - and Catholicism especially so! - is about the intent behind the laws. (Of course modern judaism contains these ideas as well, just like the Catholic church is pretty protestant nowadays, but you get my point.) For the same reason I believe protestantism is a step back on the evolutionary ladder: Historically, reformation was necessary, but it spawned a lot of fundamentalist tendencies and made man once again powerless. Sola fide is in itself a worrying concept, and it's only made worse by the 'holier-than-thou' effects.
Catholics also believe in a personal god; if you deny that, I'll start calling all christians polytheists. I have to admit I don't quite remember the theological reasoning behind having to go to confession, but it fits in with the general emphasis on organizing, collectivizing religion instead of everyone talking to good 'in private' and eventually having a myriad little denominations. It's not the priest, or the bishop, or the pope who forgives your sins, it is god; confession is just the way there. You still pray, you still pray in private as well, but all the sacraments bind you to the church collective.
As for the pope: The papacy is the ultimate expression of the will to unity, of the emphasis on the communal and collective aspects of religion. Doesn't it strike you as wierd that so many claim to follow the bible but to completely different things? Having one large organization keeps small parts from straying too far away; regional differences are widespread and very much allowed, but Rome keeps the regional communities from going completely bonkers. WBBC is something that would be commpletely unthinkable; to see an example of this principle not having worked google Society of St. Pius X.
TL;DR: Christianity is not about a private link to god, but about adhering to the spirit of the law instead of to the law itself. The individualization of religion is bad, and papacy is the ultimate expression of keeping religion organized and communal.
Also, what Grek said.
I'll admit one thing, though: The Papal infallibility dogma is a shame and has to go - rather sooner than later. It doesn't make much sense anyway.
Also, I'd like to invite Thecard to a Catholic mass sometime, just because ;)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 09:27:53 am
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 02:12:51 pm
Also, I'd like to invite Thecard to a Catholic mass sometime, just because ;)And I'd love to go, just because. ;)
I'm truly sorry if I'm misrepresenting Catholicism, I'm not Catholic. Feel free to shout it to the moon, I'm willing to accept it. I don't know all that much about Catholicism, but I do know some, and it never seems right to me.
But don't tell me I am misrepresenting the point of Christianity. I don't know everything, but there are some things I am sure of. One of those things I know is that God loves me more than anyone else can. Another thing I know is if I want forgiveness, I don't need a man to tell me I am forgiven. I can ask it from The Lord, and he will give it to me.
I don't care if you think differently. You're Catholic, I'm protestant, my religion is based on you being able to think differently!
But I am not misrepresenting Christianity. Catholicism, sure. I'm willing to admit I don't know everything about Catholicism.
I don't agree with some of the things you have said.
Quote
Last things first: Take a look at this SMBC. The point of christianity is not the idea of a personal god; the idea is that the laws that are put down are less important than not being a dick. Judaism you might call a lawyer's (no insult intended) religion: You have a set of rules to which you stick, and you're golden. Christianity - and Catholicism especially so! - is about the intent behind the laws. (Of course modern judaism contains these ideas as well, just like the Catholic church is pretty protestant nowadays, but you get my point.)To me, Christianity is very much about a personal God. He died an extremely painful death being tormented by the people he came to save, for me. I don't know what part of that is impersonal. I also don't think that Christianity is just about following the "golden rule." I'm one of them protestants who think you enter heaven through faith as well. There is a difference between going to church every Sunday and having real faith.
Quote
For the same reason I believe protestantism is a step back on the evolutionary ladder: Historically, reformation was necessary, but it spawned a lot of fundamentalist tendencies and made man once again powerless. Sola fide is in itself a worrying concept, and it's only made worse by the 'holier-than-thou' effects.It doesn't actually strike me as weird. God and his word speak to us differently. I don't think God necessarily wants everyone to do the same thing. That's why he's made us all different.
As for the pope: The papacy is the ultimate expression of the will to unity, of the emphasis on the communal and collective aspects of religion. Doesn't it strike you as wierd that so many claim to follow the bible but to completely different things? Having one large organization keeps small parts from straying too far away; regional differences are widespread and very much allowed, but Rome keeps the regional communities from going completely bonkers. WBBC is something that would be commpletely unthinkable; to see an example of this principle not having worked google Society of St. Pius X.
I mean, haven't you ever picked up the Bible, and opened it to any random ol' page? I have, and I will often find a verse relevant to something I am going through at the time. That and prayer are some of the only things that keep me going. I've come real fucking close to just stopping, if you know what I mean.
But I strongly believe religion should not be organized. Jesus gave no hierarchy of believers. There is no one between me and God. If you wish to talk to your wife, do you have to talk through a mediator? The idea that religion must be organized goes against what I believe about Christianity.
Really, I guess my biggest beef is this: If excommunication is necessary to make sinners repent, what about the people the pope misses? Do they get into heaven because someone performed the sacraments on them? And the people who were forgiven. Was Joan of Arc in purgatory until the pope admitted it was wrong to burn her at the stake?
I just believe it's a bit presumptuous to think the pope was given that authority. The fact a man would need to have it seems to suggest God not being able to refuse someone who performed sacraments to be admitted to heaven.
Maybe some of it is just that I don't see what good the pope is. If I do something wrong, I don't need to talk to a priest. I need to talk to God. If it's something I need help with, I'll see my pastor about it. But I don't think a man could forgive me on behalf of God. The only judges I recognize are God and those in America's courts.
What a man thinks of me doesn't matter. Only what God thinks of me.
Post by: Descan on December 20, 2012, 02:30:08 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 02:40:20 pm
The same old reasons, like "What separates faith in Christ the Saviour from Muhammad the Prophet from Buddha the Enlightened?"It's a principle of faith, really. I couldn't explain it to you though. Faith is just... knowing. And it's not like knowing two and two if four because you can see it.
It just kinda defies explanation. That's one of the defining characteristics. One of the reasons some people don't have faith is because they can't simply believe. It's a hard thing to do, admitting you haven't a clue why something is, but knowing for absolute certainty that it just is.
Quote
"If it exists/has impact on the Earth/matters at all, there would be evidence." And "If God is going to be punishing me for not believing, how is that, and how is he, moral?"And I don't really think God punishes for disbelief. Dickishness, yeah, God says unrepentant assholes will have him to answer to. But I think God judges on a greater scale of Morality than "Christian or Non-Christian?"
Because I don't really think punishing you for having different beliefs is moral. I mean, if you don't believe in Heaven your chances of going there decrease significantly, but that's to be expected. :P
EDIT:
And that's why people are so hard on the concept of "faith". It's claiming knowledge without supporting evidence. Not even justifiably so, like with an axiom, because an axiom can be changed by pointing out inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance... faith is a trump card that defies logic.Exactly! It's not another branch of reasoning. I'm not going to claim that faith is logical or wise, because it really isn't.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 20, 2012, 02:44:31 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 02:48:35 pm
I still haven't figured out why faith is a good thing... The same old reasons, like "What separates faith in Christ the Saviour from Muhammad the Prophet from Buddha the Enlightened?" And "If it exists/has impact on the Earth/matters at all, there would be evidence." And "If God is going to be punishing me for not believing, how is that, and how is he, moral?"Faith is too broad a concept to be judged simply, or at all. There are seriosu differences between faiths. What you do with it is what matters.
Post by: pisskop on December 20, 2012, 02:54:25 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
And that's why people are so hard on the concept of "faith". It's claiming knowledge without supporting evidence. Not even justifiably so, like with an axiom, because an axiom can be changed by pointing out inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance... faith is a trump card that defies logic.
but any educated religious individual will be able to cite a quote along the lines of challenging belief to prove faith. You are encouraged to seek out other methods of living and judges of morality. This provides insight and a ground for justification, as you have the tools to defend faith on a secular level as well, but choose faith. At least in Judaism and to a lesser extent christianity.
The eastern religions allow almost total freedom in faith/belief. The only ones who stick dogmatically without considering alternatives are playing a political game or simply not educated enough or clearly not interested in spiritual growth.
Post by: Descan on December 20, 2012, 02:58:45 pm
Having just said that he judges based on actions and intent (dickishness), not on faith, then saying "if you don't believe in heaven you're not likely to go there", that either means he DOES judge on faith, or that you believe that someone who doesn't believe is automagically immoral.
Kind of a dick move, bro.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 20, 2012, 03:05:59 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 03:08:17 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 20, 2012, 03:21:08 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 03:24:38 pm
Religion is not an explanation of how the world works. It's an idea of how it should work. (As in human relationships. Not abolishing gravity and stuff)
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 03:25:07 pm
Thecard, why have people born with disadvantages to everyone else? Those that get that far.
Is that even a sentence?
Post by: pisskop on December 20, 2012, 03:27:49 pm
Is how I read this.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 03:34:05 pm
Thecard, why have people born with disadvantages to everyone else? Those that get that far.Wut? I don't... which direction are you going?
Do you mean:
Thecard, why does God have people born with disadvantages between those that get to heaven and those who don't?When did I advocate predestination? I don't remember doing so.
Mainly because I think predestination is a way some "Christians" place themselves above others. I don't think there's anything I can do that you couldn't.
Or are you talking physical and mental disabilities here, instead of religious disabilities? That makes a lot more sense, I suppose.
Thecard, why have people born with disadvantages? Those that get that aren't stillborn, that is.Because that's not really God saying "I think I'll just web this man's feet." That's genetics being a bitch. There's a difference between this world and the next. A disabled man's belief is worth no more or less than my own. I think we are all different people, and if we both love and believe to the best of our ability, there is no difference. I also don't think it will matter in Paradise.
Religion is not an explanation of how the world works. It's an idea of how it should work. (As in human relationships. Not abolishing gravity and stuff)Sorta. It's not an explanation of how this world works. It's how this one should work, and how the next world is going to be like.
I think that's shared by most religions. I think.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 20, 2012, 03:35:45 pm
As for your response, a life consisting entirely of short pain that brings harm to all is an interesting way of running the world.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 03:40:46 pm
Beauty requires tragedy to exist, is it terrible and should we work against it? Of course, but a world completely without suffering, honestly, wouldn't be a very interesting world to live in.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 03:43:47 pm
Point about religion is that few actually proclaim a God that actually interferes with the world. Not from a scientific viewpoint anyway. It's all methaphors and ideals.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 20, 2012, 03:45:01 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 03:46:50 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 03:48:05 pm
Far enough to be born, or live for more then a couple of days. That's before you get to how life itself depends on killing other life. 10ebber10, I'm an atheist. It's rather hard to ask that question and not to be.Are you talking just about miscarriages then?
As for your response, a life consisting entirely of short pain that brings harm to all is an interesting way of running the world.
Because... I'm not understanding what it is you're asking me. Or what you're reading for that matter.
I mean... yeah, this life isn't all there is (thank God). Life's a bitch, and then you die, and then you're judged by the only one who can judge you.
As long as you aren't an asshole to everyone, I don't see what's so wrong with that.
Also, I'm gonna go right out and say it: I think an Agnostic/Atheist person has a greater chance of going to heaven than a false "believer" has. Rich man vs. Camel going through a needle an' all that.
(Rich man as in a man who gives nothing to those in need, but instead thinks only of himself. I don't think all rich people are damned.
Just the conservatives :P)
((That was joke, just in case you're republican.))
Oh, and like Fq says, I don't see why atheists have to act so cynical when talking to other people. Just because you don't believe in God, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be happy.
You wanna be cynical, be Jewish. :P ((That was another joke. Seriously though, the Old Testament is pretty cynical in places.))
And... ninja'd again.
Most of what God does here is inspiration. It's like he watches us, and sees how we really act to each other. But if we need help, he will give it.
But I think God made science, and designed it to be so understandable. It's like he made an auto-pilot for the universe.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 20, 2012, 03:50:23 pm
Man, I don't get why atheism has to be so intimately linked with cynicism.It....isn't? For the most part, that perception comes from theists. They insist, loudly as possible, that there is no way to be an atheist other than to be angry at the world. I think it is a form of denial. They cannot allow the perception that atheists are normal people to flourish, otherwise...
There's also some of this due to most people being religious before being disillusioned with it and becoming atheists. Disillusionment occasionally causes cynicism when the individual in question cannot withstand their perception of the world changing drastically.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 03:53:19 pm
Quote from: Paraphrasing
I don't believe in God because a real God wouldn't allow so much evil to exist.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 03:59:30 pm
It....isn't? For the most part, that perception comes from theists. They insist, loudly as possible, that there is no way to be an atheist other than to be angry at the world. I think it is a form of denial. They cannot allow the perception that atheists are normal people to flourish, otherwise...That's true. Hollywood does love to portray us as harboring grudges.
There's also some of this due to most people being religious before being disillusioned with it and becoming atheists. Disillusionment occasionally causes cynicism when the individual in question cannot withstand their perception of the world changing drastically.
But really, I think it's probably the latter point, because a good portion of the atheists I've met tend toward cynicism as a rule. I guess another part of it would be that atheism is neglected and not really taken seriously as a theological position yet, which I admit gets pretty infuriating. I'd just like to turn the perception of atheism around from "Religions sucks!" to "Hey isn't the natural universe awesome?"
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 20, 2012, 04:05:43 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on December 20, 2012, 04:10:44 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 04:11:47 pm
But... really, the agnostic/atheist people I've met in real life have been normal. Not bouncing off the walls (not all of 'em, at least) but not crying any rivers.
Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.Well, that's hurtful.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2012, 04:12:39 pm
Can have something to do with one of the main arguments of certain atheists being:If we're talking about a benevolent God then I fully agree. It's more like it requires a god to be either bad or not all-powerful though.Quote from: ParaphrasingI don't believe in God because a real God wouldn't allow so much evil to exist.
Not that I'm a cynic - I think the world has changed and can change, but a creator would have to have made or allowed a hell of a lot of bad things.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 20, 2012, 04:14:19 pm
What do you expect? To put children into a religion and make them follow it for years, only for them to realize it was all lies from the start? It would be more strange not to be upset.Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.Well, that's hurtful.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 04:19:51 pm
You realize that's not a civil way to talk to someone who has different beliefs, right? Telling them they teach children lies? And that it causes them to be cynical when they finally have their epiphany and realize they were idiots?What do you expect? To put children into a religion and make them follow it for years, only for them to realize it was all lies from the start? It would be more strange not to be upset.Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.Well, that's hurtful.
What is it that caused you to be so hateful towards religion? Is it something you would be okay with talking about?
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 04:22:11 pm
Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.
Absolutely agree. I guess people who were religious at some point and became atheists by questioning their faith have it harder, because religion helps believers cope with some hard truths:
a) life is finite and if it's over, it's over
b) on a cosmic scale existence is utterly meaningless
c) humans have relatively limited control over their own existence
Religion addresses all that, with ideas about an afterlife, a higher purpose for existence, reasons why things are how they are and the idea that on some level everything is gonna be ok.
Atheists don't have that and have to cope with these facts on their own. While that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy life and have a feeling of purpose, it can be a bit harder and more depressing, if you can't just ignore these things.
Can have something to do with one of the main arguments of certain atheists being:That argument goes a bit more complicated: Because there is suffering in the world, god can't be almighty, allknowing and good at the same time. By logic he can only be 2 out of 3, but believers don't care about logic, so they have to point out that god works in mysterious ways or something.Quote from: ParaphrasingI don't believe in God because a real God wouldn't allow so much evil to exist.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 04:28:58 pm
Those people who cause suffering, they will be judged and what they are due at that time. A life of suffering followed by an eternity in Paradise seems pretty damn good to me.Can have something to do with one of the main arguments of certain atheists being:That argument goes a bit more complicated: Because there is suffering in the world, god can't be almighty, allknowing and good at the same time. By logic he can only be 2 out of 3, but believers don't care about logic, so they have to point out that god works in mysterious ways or something.Quote from: ParaphrasingI don't believe in God because a real God wouldn't allow so much evil to exist.
That's kinda... y'know... the point of Jesus dying for us.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 04:28:59 pm
Being civil is not a virtue. Being honest, however, is. If people feel hurt by the truth, it just proves they're stupid.You realize that's not a civil way to talk to someone who has different beliefs, right? Telling them they teach children lies? And that it causes them to be cynical when they finally have their epiphany and realize they were idiots?What do you expect? To put children into a religion and make them follow it for years, only for them to realize it was all lies from the start? It would be more strange not to be upset.Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.Well, that's hurtful.
<snip>Those people who cause suffering, they will be judged and what they are due at that time. A life of suffering followed by an eternity in Paradise seems pretty damn good to me.
That's kinda... y'know... the point of Jesus dying for us.
I don't get the point of Jesus dying for us. Care to elaborate?
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 04:43:39 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 04:45:05 pm
Those people who cause suffering, they will be judged and what they are due at that time. A life of suffering followed by an eternity in Paradise seems pretty damn good to me.Can have something to do with one of the main arguments of certain atheists being:That argument goes a bit more complicated: Because there is suffering in the world, god can't be almighty, allknowing and good at the same time. By logic he can only be 2 out of 3, but believers don't care about logic, so they have to point out that god works in mysterious ways or something.Quote from: ParaphrasingI don't believe in God because a real God wouldn't allow so much evil to exist.
That's kinda... y'know... the point of Jesus dying for us.
What has that to do with anything?
This specific argument is an argument against a god that:
- is good - so he wants to prevent suffering
- is allmighty - so he can
- is allknowing - so he knows about every occurence of suffering in past, present and future
But there is suffering in the world.
Ergo, god is good and allmighty, but does not know everything OR god knows all and could prevent suffering, but does not want to OR god is allknowing and good, but can't prevent suffering.
This is not an argument about details in Christianity, like the role of Jesus, but against a god that monotheistic religions proclaim is good, almighty and allknowing, it's also not necessarily an argument against the existence of a god.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 04:49:41 pm
Now that's a bridge to far(Hurtfull truths exist, this isn't one of them though. Not in the way it was said earlier). The original was an exesive generalisation either. Not an uncommon generalisation, but nevertheless a completely incorrect one. Plays into the atheism elitism I talked about earlier.(On one of the emotion threads I believed).Being civil is not a virtue. Being honest, however, is. If people feel hurt by the truth, it just proves they're stupid.You realize that's not a civil way to talk to someone who has different beliefs, right? Telling them they teach children lies? And that it causes them to be cynical when they finally have their epiphany and realize they were idiots?What do you expect? To put children into a religion and make them follow it for years, only for them to realize it was all lies from the start? It would be more strange not to be upset.Good to note that (in my experience) the bitterness and cynicism is generally absent from those who were raised areligious.Well, that's hurtful.
The main error made here is that all religions/ all religious people are assumed to be litteral believers (Strangely enough, this mistake is made on "our" side). Literal believers are those who believe that God, as a physical force, makes everything happen and such. (Think fundies, the gravity doesn't exist guys, those people). At that point, you're teaching people fundamentally wrong stuff, and people can become deillussioned.
To continue about this, there are roughly 4 types of believers:
-Literal atheists (Bible contains scientifically wrong fact, hence it's fundamentally and completely wrong)
-Literal theists (Science doesn't confirm with scripture, hence science is wrong)
-Not so literal theists (Aside from the literal meaning of the texts, there are other intrepretations which are "equally" valid and often more interesting)
-Not so literal atheists (Same thing about intrepretations, but doesn't want to/need to follow the [Insert religion]'s way.)
In the above example, desilusion comes from going from literal theism to literal atheism. Non literal (a) theism generally don't experience this. Going from literal atheism to not so literal (a)theism can be an eyeopening experience, and generally, you can find some interesting people in those last 2 groups. I suppose you can guess which 2 groups I agree with.
As for the problem with the paradox thingy(has a special name), I'd go with that God isn't almighty. He's not almighty in the make everyone spontanously nice to each other way, but more in a way that the message applies to everybody, not to a select few. What you do with it is your own problem.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 20, 2012, 04:55:52 pm
You realize that's not a civil way to talk to someone who has different beliefs, right? Telling them they teach children lies? And that it causes them to be cynical when they finally have their epiphany and realize they were idiots?It's not about civility. I'm just telling you why that difference is present between never religious and ex-religious atheists.
Quote
What is it that caused you to be so hateful towards religion? Is it something you would be okay with talking about?This is a common misconception. I am not hateful towards religion as a whole, only certain practitioners (the Taliban, for example). I disapprove of religion as a whole, but hate is reserved for those who directly harm others with their religion.
If you're looking for a horror story, you won't find one with me. My departure from Christianity was not that dramatic. But here you are:
Spoiler: Warning: Boring (click to show/hide)
Those people who cause suffering, they will be judged and what they are due at that time. A life of suffering followed by an eternity in Paradise seems pretty damn good to me.And if you're wrong, you will have gone all in on suffering and wasted what you had.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 04:57:41 pm
As for the problem with the paradox thingy(has a special name), I'd go with that God isn't almighty. He's not almighty in the make everyone spontanously nice to each other way, but more in a way that the message applies to everybody, not to a select few. What you do with it is your own problem.
It's called the logical problem of evil. If I would believe in a god, I would go with he is not good. Because an entity that can create a universe would probably not care about moral or our ideas of good and evil, or every tiny detail in that universe. Kinda like the mad idiot gods in Lovecraft's horror storys.
Post by: Caz on December 20, 2012, 04:59:52 pm
Spoiler: The Egg (click to show/hide)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 05:07:11 pm
Man, I don't get why atheism has to be so intimately linked with cynicism. I'm a hardcore atheist and I think the world is an amazing and beautiful place to live. In fact, I think my beliefs make it even more astounding.you're lucky to live in a world that doesnt suck as much as some others. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and for the greater part of it's population of the world, the world sucks. atheists don't believe there's something better afterwards and sometimes it's hard to keep a cheerful spirit without some sort brain gymnastics
Beauty requires tragedy to exist, is it terrible and should we work against it? Of course, but a world completely without suffering, honestly, wouldn't be a very interesting world to live in.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 05:07:31 pm
And I'm going to assume you're honest, despite calling me and my reason for existence stupid.
Jesus died so we could all be forgiven for our sins and have eternal life. But we do have to ask for it, and ask sincerely. Through his sacrifice, we can go to Heaven if we are good people (interpretation of what that means changes from person to person, especially if you subscribe to the belief of predestination. I don't, I think it goes against what the Bible says).
But the ones who aren't kind to others, and don't feel sorry for bad things they do? Weeping and gnashing of teeth time. There is a section of the Bible made up of minor prophets, and I think (don't have my Bible on hand) Habakkuk is one that explains this well.
And don't get upset with this and whine about that not being "good." I have people use this as an argument, saying it shows how God isn't really forgiving and kind. Those people are ones who do not repent, do not feel sorry for the bad things they do. They might even apologize out loud, but it's how they really feel that matters.
And you find some people who really just don't feel sorry for the things they have done.
And I think God could make everyone nice if he wanted to, but then we would be artificial. Think about it. He's so proud that he's made us. I mean, wouldn't you be happier with a thinking robot than with a robot that followed instructions to the letter?
Ninja'd. As usual.
Thank you for sharing that, Hunt. I think I can understand why you dislike some religions, and I don't blame you for that. I don't like the Westboro or Taliban people very much at all. I have more of a "love the sinner" mentality, but I do hate the sin.
But yeah, I suppose if this life was it, I'd be pretty screwed, huh?
That's just part of faith, I guess. If there was no possible alternative to God, I couldn't really call it faith.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on December 20, 2012, 05:11:03 pm
But yeah, I suppose if this life was it, I'd be pretty screwed, huh?
Quote from: Parafrasing certain piece of the Bible. New testament
He who wants to save his life, will lose it.
Don't follow a religion just for your fear of the afterlife. It doesn't lead to good things.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 05:16:08 pm
you're lucky to live in a world that doesnt suck as much as some others. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and for the greater part of it's population of the world, the world sucks. atheists don't believe there's something better afterwards and sometimes it's hard to keep a cheerful spirit without some sort brain gymnasticsI am an atheist, and frankly I find the idea of nothingness after death relieving. I also think it's the only thing that gives meaning to life. Heh, if I did believe in an afterlife I'd actually probably find it pretty depressing. "Welp, guess it's time to deal with eternity."
I know I'm extremely lucky to live where and when I do. Historically life has been, and is even now for a lot of people, pretty terrible. But that didn't stop them from finding beauty in the world, and arguably, in a terrible situation it's even more important to find it.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 05:22:55 pm
That would be my point. I'm not actually afraid of death (not that I would particularly love to die today). I was just responding to Hunt.But yeah, I suppose if this life was it, I'd be pretty screwed, huh?Quote from: Parafrasing certain piece of the Bible. New testamentHe who wants to save his life, will lose it.
Don't follow a religion just for your fear of the afterlife. It doesn't lead to good things.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 05:26:59 pm
And I think God could make everyone nice if he wanted to, but then we would be artificial.
If god made you, you are sort of artificial. He could have made it so you (and everything in the world that can suffer) don't have to suffer. So either he does not know about you, does not love you or can't help you.
I said this before, believers don't follow logic, so it does not matter. But making up excuses like "suffering is necessary to get to the afterlife" is kind of pointless. If you believe something you can just admit that you believe it for no particular reason. And I don't mean that to sound rude.
Heh, if I did believe in an afterlife I'd actually probably find it pretty depressing. "Welp, guess it's time to deal with eternity."If there is an afterlife and there's no meadhall, I'm gonna be pissed. And not in the good way.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 05:33:22 pm
But I figure it's probably going to be something we can't even imagine.
Like...
...
...
...
... Well, I dunno.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 20, 2012, 05:35:51 pm
But I figure it's probably going to be something we can't even imagine.Just posting to say this made me chuckle (in a good way).
Like...
...
...
...
... Well, I dunno.
I'm always amused when "I dunno" is a valid and strong answer to something.
Post by: PanH on December 20, 2012, 05:47:31 pm
The only way I could think of an eternal afterlife working would be if boredom was removed, because you'd get bored of rock climbing eventually, then canoeing, then exploring the universe, then sex...Meh, we'll just re invent something like internet, and everything will be ok. God is a nuclear plant, and there's no global warming. And there's unlimited bandwidth !
You'd eventually run out of things to do, get depressed, then be unable to kill yourself.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 05:47:57 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 20, 2012, 06:02:24 pm
On the current topic - I dunno about the afterlife. I've concluded that there probably isn't one, but maybe I'm wrong. Still, I feel like the life I have now is in a pretty feckin' awesome world and I'd better make the most of it. There's no way that works out badly.
Post by: Graknorke on December 20, 2012, 06:04:33 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 06:11:02 pm
fuck afterlife. what is going into the afterlife? your soul? what the fuck is your soul? who are you? your memories? your personality? what parts of your mind would have to be erased so you could bear with eternity? what would need to be inserted so you could understand all that bullshit that is beyond human understanding? would you still be the same person after all that? and if not, why would you care that an entity tangentially related to you gets into a place that you wouldn't even find pleasant if it was actually you in there?How can you come to all of this? first off, a baby cant understand the wonders of sex, dose that mean you cant enjoy it when your older?
I mean yes we "changed a lot" but to me its the same as a kid to an adult, compare me as a kid, to a teen to an adult, its like I'm a freaking sepreate species
a person form the start of time, has no idea what now day music is, in fact it would sound WRONG to them, heck chords did not even exist, dose that mean music cant change?
As long as you LIKE it at that point in time I don't see a problbem, my likes change here right now a lot as well, and they will change more, just becuse one day I will like running (hahah yeah right) dont mean that when I do its not me
Of course the ideas of souls is thats what makes you, you in the first place... so the point is moot.
As for what goes, I to often wonder, and I do fear the idea of not being able to have a "love" (wifes and husbands will not be wifes and husbands anymore) but it sounds nice when you think bout it, no more pain, there is no need for a wife or husband, you alredy had kids, you are not going anywhere, and you will know peace...
But yeah the unknown parts do scare me
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 06:14:20 pm
Okay, this is entirely unrelated to the current conversation, but I checked in on this many pages ago and noticed we were having a debate about what agnosticism was and how it related to atheism.
...
How'd that wind up getting resolved (if anybody cares)?
I didn't follow that debate, but I would say that agnosticism is a statement like "maybe there is a god, maybe not, I do not/can not know". Important for agnostics is the question wether you can actually know something like that. Atheism would say something in between "Probably there is no god" and "I definitely know there is no god". So atheism assumes that you can make statements about the existence of a god.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 06:16:21 pm
i too am an atheist and i too find the idea of nothingness after death relieving. i'm not worried about my death for my sake, but i'm having a really hard time coming to terms with the deaths of people very close to me, and i'm scared shit about what will happen to the people around me when i die. there's no beauty to be found in death in real life. there's nothing poetic about it, it's just ridiculous and unbelievable, and nothing can comfort you short of believing dead people are not really dead, which isn't that hard to believe, given that death is so hard to swallowyou're lucky to live in a world that doesnt suck as much as some others. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and for the greater part of it's population of the world, the world sucks. atheists don't believe there's something better afterwards and sometimes it's hard to keep a cheerful spirit without some sort brain gymnasticsI am an atheist, and frankly I find the idea of nothingness after death relieving. I also think it's the only thing that gives meaning to life.
i do believe i'm not the same person i was as a baby, and because a caveman wouldn't be able to appreciate classical music it wouldn't make much sense to reward him by giving him classical music. getting past that, if paradise is so awesome, why weren't we born in there then? doesn't god love us enough?fuck afterlife. what is going into the afterlife? your soul? what the fuck is your soul? who are you? your memories? your personality? what parts of your mind would have to be erased so you could bear with eternity? what would need to be inserted so you could understand all that bullshit that is beyond human understanding? would you still be the same person after all that? and if not, why would you care that an entity tangentially related to you gets into a place that you wouldn't even find pleasant if it was actually you in there?How can you come to all of this? first off, a baby cant understand the wonders of sex, dose that mean you cant enjoy it when your older?
I mean yes we "changed a lot" but to me its the same as a kid to an adult, compare me as a kid, to a teen to an adult, its like I'm a freaking sepreate species
a person form the start of time, has no idea what now day music is, in fact it would sound WRONG to them, heck chords did not even exist, dose that mean music cant change?
As long as you LIKE it at that point in time I don't see a problbem, my likes change here right now a lot as well, and they will change more, just becuse one day I will like running (hahah yeah right) dont mean that when I do its not me
Of course the ideas of souls is thats what makes you, you in the first place... so the point is moot.
As for what goes, I to often wonder, and I do fear the idea of not being able to have a "love" (wifes and husbands will not be wifes and husbands anymore) but it sounds nice when you think bout it, no more pain, there is no need for a wife or husband, you alredy had kids, you are not going anywhere, and you will know peace...
But yeah the unknown parts do scare me
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 06:21:00 pm
Imagine if every year, on your birthday, you were given a single grain of sand. Once you have enough sand to build earth, its moon, and every other object in the universe out of sand, that wouldn't even be day 1 of eternity. By the end of the first thousand years you would be begging for it to end! How can you ever be happy knowing that firstly there is no real point to doing anything today, because there will always be tomorrow, and secondly sooner rather than later you will have done it all. Everything. Every possible thing to keep the mind focused.
Eternity is the slow, painful death of inspiration.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 06:22:48 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 06:28:50 pm
Again, I don't know what it'll be like exactly, but I highly doubt Paradise is like the Earth.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 06:31:59 pm
We where, we where in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve messed it up, put it this way why do parents not give kids evrye single thing they ever want, and give them "par-dice"? Why do parents punish their kids, and let them go through their trials? its part of life and growing, maybe thats true there too, if you give a kid evrey single thing they hope for what happens?
i do believe i'm not the same person i was as a baby, and because a caveman wouldn't be able to appreciate classical music it wouldn't make much sense to reward him by giving him classical music. getting past that, if paradise is so awesome, why weren't we born in there then? doesn't god love us enough?
So why did he?
For one love, its quite clear that many times you have to let your kid\what ever make their mistakes learn and live. or they turn out... with problems
Do I know why God dose this? fully no, but neither dose a kid know why their parent dose it, it dont make what the parent dose any less right dose it?
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 06:35:01 pm
simple. god makes boredom go awaySee then the implication is that we all live as mindless potatoes for all eternity. Still not as appealing to me as a finite lifespan.
Or... y'know, there's more to do than just build sandcastles and mope.What takes an eternity to do?
Fuck if there is a god, that must be why it made this vast thing called the universe. So he could tune in to channel earth and watch the monkeys learn to use sticks. Not much else to do really. Damn, well that isn't that great, better give them morality and watch them abuse it! Oh look, they are killing each other over different interpretations of what I am like. Fuck, better select an form of existence and punish whoever guesses wrong!
Post by: Bauglir on December 20, 2012, 06:39:26 pm
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 06:40:58 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 06:41:35 pm
so paradise was the garden of eden? fuck, that's boring. adam and eve were in paradise and they manage to fuck up quite early, do the nice people that go to paradise also fuck up from time to time? after all they have all the eternity to do itWe where, we where in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve messed it up, put it this way why do parents not give kids evrye single thing they ever want, and give them "par-dice"? Why do parents punish their kids, and let them go through their trials? its part of life and growing, maybe thats true there too, if you give a kid evrey single thing they hope for what happens?
i do believe i'm not the same person i was as a baby, and because a caveman wouldn't be able to appreciate classical music it wouldn't make much sense to reward him by giving him classical music. getting past that, if paradise is so awesome, why weren't we born in there then? doesn't god love us enough?
So why did he?
For one love, its quite clear that many times you have to let your kid\what ever make their mistakes learn and live. or they turn out... with problems
Do I know why God dose this? fully no, but neither dose a kid know why their parent dose it, it dont make what the parent dose any less right dose it?
and why am i paying for the sin(eating an apple is a sin?) of a couple of cavemen? how is that moral?
and god made the rules, if we can fuck up, it's because god made it so we could fuck up, and we do fuck up bigtime. it's not our fault though, it's god's.
oh, but you'll like it after you become a potatosimple. god makes boredom go awaySee then the implication is that we all live as mindless potatoes for all eternity. Still not as appealing to me as a finite lifespan.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 06:42:19 pm
i too am an atheist and i too find the idea of nothingness after death relieving. i'm not worried about my death for my sake, but i'm having a really hard time coming to terms with the deaths of people very close to me, and i'm scared shit about what will happen to the people around me when i die. there's no beauty to be found in death in real life. there's nothing poetic about it, it's just ridiculous and unbelievable, and nothing can comfort you short of believing dead people are not really dead, which isn't that hard to believe, given that death is so hard to swallowI don't mean to say there's something poetic about death. There isn't really, outside of movies. What I meant was that the only reason I feel like life is important is because it ends. Things have value because they're finite.
Also, sometimes the death of a loved one can be comforting. For example, my grandma had severe Alzheimer's and it was extraordinarily painful to see her like that. When she died it was a relief because she wasn't wasting away physically or mentally anymore. Although I do understand your underlying point, the idea that someone is completely and irrevocably gone can be hard to come to terms with. Gotta admit I never considered an afterlife as a solution to that problem though. I've kinda just... accepted that's the way it is. Hard sometimes though.
This.simple. god makes boredom go awaySee then the implication is that we all live as mindless potatoes for all eternity. Still not as appealing to me as a finite lifespan.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 06:43:10 pm
Or, he made us because he wanted to have something he could love. That's why most people like having kids. But forcing your kids to think or act a certain way is not very loving.Or... y'know, there's more to do than just build sandcastles and mope.What takes an eternity to do?
Fuck if there is a god, that must be why it made this vast thing called the universe. So he could tune in to channel earth and watch the monkeys learn to use sticks. Not much else to do really. Damn, well that isn't that great, better give them morality and watch them abuse it! Oh look, they are killing each other over different interpretations of what I am like. Fuck, better select an form of existence and punish whoever guesses wrong!
It's funny how people write stories about mass brainwashing to pacify citizens, and that's a dystopia. Yet a common question people have is "why doesn't God make someone do this?" It seems a bit hypocritical to me. You don't really want someone/something to make you think a certain way, do you?
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 06:48:59 pm
Your also assuming we will have a feeling of boredom, what if you could do the same stuff over and over not get bored still have fun?
You may think now "I don't want that" but you wont mind then soooo like a kid who says he dont want to like girls, will soon change their minds
Quote
so paradise was the garden of eden? fuck, that's boring. adam and eve were in paradise and they manage to fuck up quite early, do the nice people that go to paradise also fuck up from time to time? after all they have all the eternity to do ityou don't even know what the Garden of Edan was, hell if we got you playing Dwarf fortress (Assuming you play it) when you where young enough you would think the same thing of DF, dose that mean you should not play DF now?
You have to stop acting like what you like and dislike now is what you will like then or even a decade form now.
Quote
Becuse of free will, we pay because we STILL sin. Once you stop sin you can then come talk to me about what you "deserve"
and why am i paying for the sin(eating an apple is a sin?) of a couple of cavemen? how is that moral?
Quote
and god made the rules, if we can fuck up, it's because god made it so we could fuck up, and we do fuck up bigtime. it's not our fault though, it's god's.Wrong, God gave you free will, if a parent gives you a choice of studying or not, whose fault is it in the end? the kids for not picking, God choices not to force you to do anything
He lets you make your own choices and as such blame is on you.
You act like how boring it would be there, how boring would it be if God just made us do good all the time? not have free will?
Quote
oh, but you'll like it after you become a potatoAnd I'm sure your like a short life when your 80... not
History can show, young guys? want to live dont worry bout Tommy, as you grow older and mature your mind set will carnage, your no longer living for the now
Maybe that's why God has us wait here, so when we do go there we go of our own free will reddy for it instead of longing for this life.
Post by: Bauglir on December 20, 2012, 06:50:17 pm
And once you have done all the things?Fortunately, I never will. Hooray for the nature of infinity.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 06:53:08 pm
but sometimes the death of a loved one is just stupid, and once you get one of those, those comforting deaths will seem meaningless and trivial. sometimes you don't get time to say all the goodbyes you wanted to say, sometimes you're buying someone their Christmas present and then you find out they won't be around to receive iti too am an atheist and i too find the idea of nothingness after death relieving. i'm not worried about my death for my sake, but i'm having a really hard time coming to terms with the deaths of people very close to me, and i'm scared shit about what will happen to the people around me when i die. there's no beauty to be found in death in real life. there's nothing poetic about it, it's just ridiculous and unbelievable, and nothing can comfort you short of believing dead people are not really dead, which isn't that hard to believe, given that death is so hard to swallowI don't mean to say there's something poetic about death. There isn't really, outside of movies. What I meant was that the only reason I feel like life is important is because it ends. Things have value because they're finite.
Also, sometimes the death of a loved one can be comforting. For example, my grandma had severe Alzheimer's and it was extraordinarily painful to see her like that. When she died it was a relief because she wasn't wasting away physically or mentally anymore. Although I do understand your underlying point, the idea that someone is completely and irrevocably gone can be hard to come to terms with. Gotta admit I never considered an afterlife as a solution to that problem though. I've kinda just... accepted that's the way it is. Hard sometimes though.
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 06:53:08 pm
oh, but you'll like it after you become a potatoI really, really hope that was a joke. I mean I smiled at it, but then there was that after thought of 'Oh shit, what if he didn't see the joke?'
I mean people use that same sort of logic to support homosexual 'curing' clinics. Funnily enough for religious reasons...
Or, he made us because he wanted to have something he could love. That's why most people like having kids. But forcing your kids to think or act a certain way is not very loving.Aww, the super being just wants a hug, and will punish those that don't oblige to eternal hell. And not only do they need to give it a hug, they also need to guess its name and gender, stance on human rights issues and favorite day of the week, or they need to go sit in the BURNY CORNER for the rest of forever.
It's funny how people write stories about mass brainwashing to pacify citizens, and that's a dystopia. Yet a common question people have is "why doesn't God make someone do this?" It seems a bit hypocritical to me. You don't really want someone/something to make you think a certain way, do you?
I don't want god to control people, partly because I don't think their is a god, and party because I hope there if there is a god, it gives us free will. Asking why doesn't god change peoples mind is as short sighted as asking for eternal life.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 06:54:20 pm
Or, he made us because he wanted to have something he could love. That's why most people like having kids. But forcing your kids to think or act a certain way is not very loving.
Actually I find this a cynical argument. Because (normally) parents will do anything they can to prevent their kids from suffering. Which brings me back to my argument from before (ie the logical problem of evil).
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 06:56:52 pm
suffering is part of life and hate to say it but to a point your doing your kid a bad thing if you help out all their problems, sometime they have to learn to do it them selfs.
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 06:59:05 pm
And why do you want them to know better? Because you won't always be around to protect them, so they need to be ready for that day.
Does god let us suffer so that we are ready for a time when he isn't there and things get worse?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 06:59:58 pm
wolfy used this argument seriously in his last responseoh, but you'll like it after you become a potatoI really, really hope that was a joke. I mean I smiled at it, but then there was that after thought of 'Oh shit, what if he didn't see the joke?'
I mean people use that same sort of logic to support homosexual 'curing' clinics. Funnily enough for religious reasons...
Except your forgetting, study's show very often, and many parents follow this advice, some times you have to LET them do their own thing, let them get hurt, tell them no, cause if you dont then life will be hardyes, because you have to prepare them for the shitty life the creator laid out for them. they have to cope with suffering, because there will be no paradise afterwards
suffering is part of life and hate to say it but to a point your doing your kid a bad thing if you help out all their problems, sometime they have to learn to do it them selfs.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 07:02:28 pm
See why do you need to let the child do their own thing and sometimes get hurt for it? Because you want them to know better.No, he dose it so we can use our free will, he dont want to be the God who dose everything for us, tells us everything to do and we blindly follow him, he wants us to come to him with love and having our own minds, and our own things
And why do you want them to know better? Because you won't always be around to protect them, so they need to be ready for that day.
Does god let us suffer so that we are ready for a time when he isn't there and things get worse?
See my parents did it, they are still here, they can still help me but they dont do everything for me, that's what God dose, forever, God's not going anywhere, we are just getting our free will and learning how to be our selfs
My parents will help when I need it, but they are letting me be my own person because a life where someone else dose everything for you is not living, even you I think agree, or would you rathher the goverment tell you what to do, who you can marry, who you date and what you say?
HE lets us choose, be with him or not, would you rather him not let you pick?
"yes, because you have to prepare them for the shitty life the creator laid out for them. they have to cope with suffering, because there will be no paradise afterwards"
You can belive that and it will be true for you, I just hope you don't end up regretting it
See? God lets you pick, would you rather he force you?
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 07:02:43 pm
But you'd also have to do an infinite number of repetitions of infinite variations on an infinite number of activities (presuming of course the number of activities in the afterlife is infinite, which I suppose it would have to be).And once you have done all the things?Fortunately, I never will. Hooray for the nature of infinity.
Eternity is confusing...
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 07:06:50 pm
No, he dose it so we can use our free will, he dont want to be the God who dose everything for us, tells us everything to do and we blindly follow him, he wants us to come to him with love and having our own minds, and our own thingsWe chose to go to war. Ok, I can accept that is our fault. We should deal with the suffering involved in that.
See my parents did it, they are still here, they can still help me but they dont do everything for me, that's what God dose, forever, God's not going anywhere, we are just getting our free will and learning how to be our selfs
HE lets us choose, be with him or not, would you rather him not let you pick?
We chose to have an economy. I can understand why there are poor people and don't ask god to solve what we should be working on fixing.
Nobody chose mass plagues that kill thousands in some of the most painful ways imaginable, or famines that leave children looking like living skeletons. God has these to answer for.
No amount of 'Being with him' has ever cured the sick.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 07:08:08 pm
he lets us choose shit. i have no choice. some people would chose to be female instead of male, but god made us and the world so they can't. some people would chose to live instead of die, but fuck that, that's not how the world works and you got no choice there. some people would chose to rape and kill. yeah, god's okay with thatSee why do you need to let the child do their own thing and sometimes get hurt for it? Because you want them to know better.No, he dose it so we can use our free will, he dont want to be the God who dose everything for us, tells us everything to do and we blindly follow him, he wants us to come to him with love and having our own minds, and our own things
And why do you want them to know better? Because you won't always be around to protect them, so they need to be ready for that day.
Does god let us suffer so that we are ready for a time when he isn't there and things get worse?
See my parents did it, they are still here, they can still help me but they dont do everything for me, that's what God dose, forever, God's not going anywhere, we are just getting our free will and learning how to be our selfs
My parents will help when I need it, but they are letting me be my own person because a life where someone else dose everything for you is not living, even you I think agree, or would you rathher the goverment tell you what to do, who you can marry, who you date and what you say?
HE lets us choose, be with him or not, would you rather him not let you pick?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 07:18:32 pm
"yes, because you have to prepare them for the shitty life the creator laid out for them. they have to cope with suffering, because there will be no paradise afterwards"by "there will be no paradise afterwards" i meant that adult life is no paradise. a trully loving parent wouldn't want anything that made their children unhappy, but he has to do it sometimes or the child will grow up expecting life to be easy, and have will a hard time functioning as an adult in a world that is not how they would chose it to be. that does not apply to godhood, our "adulthood" in heaven will be perfect, so there's no reason our "childhood" in earth has to be so shitty. unless heaven is even worse, oh boy
You can belive that and it will be true for you, I just hope you don't end up regretting it
See? God lets you pick, would you rather he force you?
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 07:32:05 pm
Show me one place anywhere choice and free will = doing what ever you want?
he lets us choose shit. i have no choice. some people would chose to be female instead of male, but god made us and the world so they can't. some people would chose to live instead of die, but fuck that, that's not how the world works and you got no choice there. some people would chose to rape and kill. yeah, god's okay with that
It dose not, just because you have choices dont mean everything you want will happen, no promise of that was ever giving
Free will dose not = can do what ever, no one ever said that, you will find no evince of it anywhere in the bible
As for male and female, maybe he DOSE let you pick before your born, you would not know, but again its the power of will, of wanting to, of being able to say "hey i want to be a female" not the action of it.
God lets you be in control of your own actions, not everything every where at anytime, you will find nothing that says that.
God never said you could fly if you wanted to, he just gave you free will.
That will in no way means you will get what you want, no where at all is it a 100% thing that becuse you want it you get it, it just means you CAN want things of your own acored.
Quote
You will find even in those there is goodness, plagues lead to death but also new life, as dose fires, as dose an animal killing another animal, its death gives birth to new life
Nobody chose mass plagues that kill thousands in some of the most painful ways imaginable, or famines that leave children looking like living skeletons. God has these to answer for.
I believe anyways God gave free will to all life, even plagues form Bactria and what not, while there is no mention of this in the bible 9 Just like it never says the world is round or a billion other of things) its my belief
He dont force it on us, he don't stop it form going on to us, he may cure it I would not know.
Again dont claim this is "right" it is a belief, just like yours that there is no par dice, or that God cant have a logical reason for it.
And if they so choice they go to haven when they die, I will not say this is what God had in mind, I dont know, you dont know, but that don't mean what he has in mind, or why he did it was good or bad.
Quote
No amount of 'Being with him' has ever cured the sick.Some claim it has, has it? I can not answer, but there are plenty of "healing" and people living that cant be explained by modern science (Dont mean god is behind it of course, it could be anything, my point is if we cant exsplain it then you cant say "it was not him" with out it just being faith it was not)
Quote
by "there will be no paradise afterwards" i meant that adult life is no paradise. a trully loving parent wouldn't want anything that made their children unhappy, but he has to do it sometimes or the child will grow up expecting life to be easy, and have will a hard time functioning as an adult in a world that is not how they would chose it to be. that does not apply to godhood, our "adulthood" in heaven will be perfect, so there's no reason our "childhood" in earth has to be so shitty. unless heaven is even worse, oh boyOr maybe its so we can have the free will, and pick to go to heaven or not? let us decide not at any one moment but decide over our life time?
That would have nothing to do with hard times in hevan, but rather wanting you, as a own thinking, breathing person who has time to grow and understand God and what he offers pick
it be like if the parent forced the kid to do football or what not, in some cases it may of helped yes, but in most it did not.
Maybe he dose it because he wants you to come to him, and with that comes trials, because if you just "go to him in haven " then who knows it may be like a kid who is giving everything, its not the same, and its not giving you a fair chance to pick
If I asked a kid what he wanted in the world he would say something (most likelu) like toys, would you say its fair to ask then or latter when he has time to make up his mind?
with free will comes change, and just putting us there instantly leads to problems I belive
There are a billion of ways to "claim" god is evil and an equal amount of ways to see good in it, no one is right cause non of us know what he thinks, or if he really exists, we just simply believe
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 07:46:47 pm
You will find even in those there is goodness, plagues lead to death but also new life, as dose fires, as dose an animal killing another animal, its death gives birth to new life
Umm, no. No I think you will find that is pretty much bullshit.
Fire can be used for both destructive and constructive means, yes.
Eating meat is pretty morally justifiable in my opinion.
You will be pretty fucking hard pressed to justify good in some of the horrible suffering that is happening to people as I type because of diseases. Seriously, you can dance around throwing flowers saying 'But GOOD things come from it too!' but can you actually point out what good?
Some claim it has, has it? I can not answer, but there are plenty of "healing" and people living that cant be explained by modern science (Dont mean god is behind it of course, it could be anything, my point is if we cant exsplain it then you cant say "it was not him" with out it just being faith it was not)Well some claims, in fact many, are wrong. Clear cut and objectively wrong. You can't cure a cold with highly diluted poisons, you can't cure cancer with the power of wishing really hard, and you can't cure cystic fibrosis with prayer.
Just because something is not currently understood by modern science doesn't mean it can not be understood. There have been countless false claims of miracles in the past, but when put under the microscope they always, always come down to natural cause.
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 07:52:30 pm
If everything we think we know was shown to be wrong, and earth is riding on the back of four giant elephants on the back of a giant turtle, modern science would ask what gender is the turtle?
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 07:58:01 pm
Quote
Umm, no. No I think you will find that is pretty much bullshit.so why is eating meat okay for you?
Fire can be used for both destructive and constructive means, yes.
Eating meat is pretty morally justifiable in my opinion.
Quote
You will be pretty fucking hard pressed to justify good in some of the horrible suffering that is happening to people as I type because of diseases. Seriously, you can dance around throwing flowers saying 'But GOOD things come from it too!' but can you actually point out what good?
To point out, desies came when man sin, its part of sin, dose that excuse it? I don't know, but its there because of sin, (if we take it as God being real, which you are by asking me why God dose something)
Quote
Well some claims, in fact many, are wrong. Clear cut and objectively wrong. You can't cure a cold with highly diluted poisons, you can't cure cancer with the power of wishing really hard, and you can't cure cystic fibrosis with prayer.Your wrong, you can not 100% proof this, or have ANYWAY of knowing this, there is no way to keep track of it, at least admit this is just your belief, I'm man enough to admit (and I did in that post) that I can only believe they happen, i cant prove they do, can you do the same?
Just because something is not currently understood by modern science doesn't mean it can not be understood. There have been countless false claims of miracles in the past, but when put under the microscope they always, always come down to natural cause.
If not, I seem to recall its your side that says we pretend like our beliefs are right, and thats what makes us so annoying
I'm openly admitting, I could be wrong, are you going to do the same?
Also the whole "modern" science" if you read my post you will see I JUST SAID THAT, my point was we cant explain it whih means you cant say it always can be explained because you don't know, you believe it can.
also if we are talking of God and we are acting like he is real how can you honestly say "cant" to be talking about miracles , if we talk about god then he CAN heal those things, but if you dont believe in him then talking about miracles makes no diffidence
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 07:59:37 pm
Post by: PanH on December 20, 2012, 08:03:57 pm
I personally find the non-afterlife quite terrifying. I would rather believe in an infinity doing nothing, but I am atheist.But you'd also have to do an infinite number of repetitions of infinite variations on an infinite number of activities (presuming of course the number of activities in the afterlife is infinite, which I suppose it would have to be).And once you have done all the things?Fortunately, I never will. Hooray for the nature of infinity.
Eternity is confusing...
It's like not existing .... never. For an eternity. Sure, you wouldn't think/feel it. But still ....
(Fornever ?)
And I would ask 'Why was Terry Pratchett right?'Because it's turtles all the way down.
Post by: Starver on December 20, 2012, 08:05:21 pm
Okay, this is entirely unrelated to the current conversation, but I checked in on this many pages ago and noticed we were having a debate about what agnosticism was and how it related to atheism.
...
How'd that wind up getting resolved (if anybody cares)?
I didn't follow that debate, but I would say that agnosticism is a statement like "maybe there is a god, maybe not, I do not/can not know". Important for agnostics is the question wether you can actually know something like that. Atheism would say something in between "Probably there is no god" and "I definitely know there is no god". So atheism assumes that you can make statements about the existence of a god.
For me I don't see atheism[1], and agnosticism[2] as quite so unmixable. Much as there can be agnostic theists. Obviously the "harder" the (a)theism, the more likely it is that this opinion is because you have an erm... 'gnostic'[3] certainty and are less likely you go "but who knows!?!", but I wouldn't rule anything out entirely.
This may already have been covered, but I haven't been able to check (this thread's going mad, right now).
(Fakedit (to reply to something now three more replies intervening): It's not inconceivable that one person has the right idea (although there's rapidly diminishing returns on there being significantly more of them in total agreement). I would personally appreciate the Universe more if there was (somewhere, perhaps not beneath our feet...) an astrochelonian. But that's another issue altogether.)
[1] A-theism (no God_opinion) through to Athe-ism (no_God opinion).
[2] Itself ranging from "I don't currently know" through to "One could never know".
[3] Noting that capital-G Gnosticism is not the antithesis of agnosticism and is really something else. I'm not going into the capital-G meaning here.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2012, 08:06:14 pm
And I would ask 'Why was Terry Pratchett right?'The Science of Discworld series is pretty interesting, with the Discworld used to explore what humans generally think the world should be like versus what the world actually is.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 08:07:39 pm
Statement 0 (straight from the Bible): God exists.See why do you need to let the child do their own thing and sometimes get hurt for it? Because you want them to know better.No, he dose it so we can use our free will, he dont want to be the God who dose everything for us, tells us everything to do and we blindly follow him, he wants us to come to him with love and having our own minds, and our own things
And why do you want them to know better? Because you won't always be around to protect them, so they need to be ready for that day.
Does god let us suffer so that we are ready for a time when he isn't there and things get worse?
Statement 1 (also from the Bible): God is omniscient.
Statement 2 (also from the Bible): God is omnipotent.
Statement 3 (also from the Bible): God created the universe.
Statement 4 (specialization of 1): God knows the past, present and future of every imaginable universe.
Statement 5 (specialization of 2): God could have created every imaginable universe.
Statement 6 (concluded from 3 and our existence): From all the universes God could create, God created this one.
Statement 7 (concluded from 4, 5 and 6): God knowingly chose to create this universe so this past, present and future would happen.
Statement 8 (concluded from 7): God decided all our actions.
Statement 9 (concluded from 8): We have no free will.
There are a billion of ways to "claim" god is evil and an equal amount of ways to see good in it, no one is right cause non of us know what he thinks, or if he really exists, we just simply believeSince you say that no-one knows if he exists, you concede that there is no evidence for God.
In that case, why do people know about him? Who was the first person to believe in God, and why did he start believing? Since there is no evidence, he must have made it all up.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 08:14:24 pm
For me I don't see atheism[1], and agnosticism[2] as quite so unmixable.
I didn't mean to imply they were unmixable. There is definitely some overlap between agnostics and soft atheists. It's just that they have a different emphasis. Atheists have more or less made up their mind, while agnostics haven't or don't think they can.
Nice touch with the footnotes btw, very Pratchett-y.
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 08:15:19 pm
And I would ask 'Why was Terry Pratchett right?'Because Pratchett is always fucking right, dammit! Even when he is presenting a subjective view, he is objectively right.
In that way, he is a lot like a girlfriend, except a lot hairier.
To point out, desies came when man sin, its part of sin, dose that excuse it? I don't know, but its there because of sin, (if we take it as God being real, which you are by asking me why God dose something)Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was the dark age, and we still think that illness is caused by demons entering the body. That sickness is our earthy punishment for our crimes against superman. That disease is caused by sin, and not tiny pathogens! Fuck washing your hands, unless it is in a basin of holy water! The common cold turns up most often in winter because that is clearly when people most often partake in devil worship, right?
Are earthquakes caused by homosexuals and school shootings caused by secularism too?
Your wrong, you can not 100% proof this, or have ANYWAY of knowing this, there is no way to keep track of it, at least admit this is just your belief, I'm man enough to admit (and I did in that post) that I can only believe they happen, i cant prove they do, can you do the same?I'll be willing to admit I'm wrong. I will bend over backwards and proclaim to the world that wishful thinking really does help, assuming you use the right sort of incense. All you need to do is show me objective evidence.
If not, I seem to recall its your side that says we pretend like our beliefs are right, and thats what makes us so annoying
I'm openly admitting, I could be wrong, are you going to do the same?
Also the whole "modern" science" if you read my post you will see I JUST SAID THAT, my point was we cant explain it whih means you cant say it always can be explained because you don't know, you believe it can.
also if we are talking of God and we are acting like he is real how can you honestly say "cant" to be talking about miracles , if we talk about god then he CAN heal those things, but if you dont believe in him then talking about miracles makes no diffidence
You want to say that praying helps people? Show me.
If I want to say the earth is round, I need to show you some evidence, and I can!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Science doesn't exactly 'prove' anything because that doesn't leave room for refinement, but don't be mistaken into thinking that makes it in any way subjective. In that way I can never prove that a virus is causing your cold, but I can say that in every case ever of ever having a cold anywhere ever, this virus has been there, showing correlation, and I can show what it does to cause the cold, showing causation. I can objectively say that the virus caused the cold.
You just don't have that. You don't have certainty. You don't have reliability. All you have is wishful thinking and cognitive bias.
EDIT:
Relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U)
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 08:20:58 pm
Quote
Statement 0 (straight from the Bible): God exists.
Statement 1 (also from the Bible): God is omniscient.
Statement 2 (also from the Bible): God is omnipotent.
Statement 3 (also from the Bible): God created the universe.
Statement 4 (concluded from 1 and 3): When God created the universe, God was omniscient.
Statement 5 (specialization of 1): God knows the past, present and future of every imaginable universe.
Statement 6 (specialization of 2): God could have created every imaginable universe.
Statement 7 (concluded from 3, 4 and our existence): From all the universes God could create, God created this one.
Statement 8 (concluded from 5, 6 and 7): God knowingly chose to create this universe so this past, present and future would happen.
Statement 9 (concluded from 8): God decided all our actions.
Statement 10 (concluded from 9): We have no free will.
Wrong, once again, you misuse the bible
Statement 7 is where you fail most, where at all dose it say he did not create them all? and only made ours?
You also assume that god knowing of all possible universes, means ours is premeditated, for all we know its not, we have free will, he dose not decide, he just can see "past" this universe, and past this "derision" if you will and see all choices we ever could make, it dont mean he knows we will make this one or that one, or if he dose, it dont mean he makes us pick it
we still pick it
Even if there is one unversed, it don't mean he picks because nothing says he dont see all the pathways and we pick which ever we want, heck there could be an ifnite amount of paths and he could still see them all
An example, my mom KNEW I would pick the new guitar, cause she knows me so well, she knew before it happen, and saw it coming, dose that mean she picked for me? NO
We still pick the ones we make, its like watching a play. I may know the lines and all , it don't mean the guys in the show did not pick choices there.
being all seeing and all knowing don't mean he controls it at all it just means he knows and see
heck it could be like time travel, he sees the future, say a caveman goes in to the future and sees GW become president, it dont mean he picks for us
Quote
Since you say that no-one knows if he exists, you concede that there is no evidence for God.this logic fails so bad
In that case, why do people know about him? Who was the first person to believe in God, and why did he start believing? Since there is no evidence, he must have made it all up.
No one knew at one time if the world was round, why did people believe it was not? who was the first person to think it? and why did thet? since there is no evinced of it (to them back then) it must be made up
Correct? of course not.
Just because you cant prove something dont mean its made up
We cant prove that there is life on other planets
Why do people know about life on other planets? who was the first person to? and why?
no evinced? made up
Quote
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was the dark age, and we still think that illness is caused by demons entering the body. That sickness is our earthy punishment for our crimes against superman. That disease is caused by sin, and not tiny pathogens! Fuck washing your hands, unless it is in a basin of holy water! The common cold turns up most often in winter because that is clearly when people most often partake in devil worship, right?Oh stop it, I'm being polite to you, do the same to me
Are earthquakes caused by homosexuals and school shootings caused by secularism too?
I have not done anything to say "your wrong"
I've not insulted you, I'm trying to nicely talk of our beliefs, please do the same
I'm not saying demons cause it, I'm saying (if you need it in science terms) when in the garden of eden, we could not get sick, we were immune to everything, sin caused us to become uimmune, when they eat the fruit, they gained life AND death, AND death, eating that furit gave us life and death and so we die on this earth only to be united after death with God and the way it used to be, no more plague, no more sickness, no more sin.
I dont belive "sin" in of it self kills, it allows for it
A man who gets killed is no more a sinner then you or I
We all sin, they are not caused by Satan, us humans of our own free will keep on sinning.
"Science doesn't exactly 'prove' anything because that doesn't leave room for refinement, but don't be mistaken into thinking that makes it in any way subjective. In that way I can never prove that a virus is causing your cold, but I can say that in every case ever of ever having a cold anywhere ever, this virus has been there, showing correlation, and I can show what it does to cause the cold, showing causation. I can objectively say that the virus caused the cold.
You just don't have that. You don't have certainty. You don't have reliability. All you have is wishful thinking and cognitive bias."
But you dont either, you dont have proof all "miracles, can be explained, you don't have proof there is no par dice, and here is the thing I'm not asking for proof 9as in expecting to get it cause I know you cant give it, neither can I)
Post by: PanH on December 20, 2012, 08:23:06 pm
If I want to say the earth is round, I need to show you some evidence, and I can!
Technically, what you showed could be just a disc. And my (this) post has no real point whatsoever.
Post by: Max White on December 20, 2012, 08:24:26 pm
I'm not saying demons cause it, I'm saying (if you need it in science terms) when in the garden of eden, we could not get sick, we were immune to everything, sin caused us to become uimmune, when they eat the fruit, they gained life AND death, AND death.
I dont belive "sin" in of it self kills, it allows for it
A man who gets killed is no more a sinner then you or I
We all sin, they are not caused by Satan, us humans of our own free will keep on sinning.
Wait... Waaaaait. Hold on.
Are... are you a creationist? Do you take the book of Genesis literally?
Post by: Starver on December 20, 2012, 08:36:06 pm
IIRC the turtle is female and became a parent recently.Given how sea-turtles don't tend to be so parental about the eggs, star turtles may also be exceptional in that the fathers attend the hatchings.
(I don't recall any other in-canon situaton that can actually clarify the situation either way.)
Quote
The more interesting question is how the elephant knows when to lift it's leg to let the sun pass through.(Its). After the first few times of being burnt they now work to a rhythm? Maybe that's why the Fifth Elephant fell off, when they were all star elephant calves..? I must re-(re-re-)read that sometime.
As I often say, I class myself as agnostic, atheist and apatheist.For me I don't see atheism[1], and agnosticism[2] as quite so unmixable.
I didn't mean to imply they were unmixable. There is definitely some overlap between agnostics and soft atheists. It's just that they have a different emphasis. Atheists have more or less made up their mind, while agnostics haven't or don't think they can.
A hard-agnostic, because I don't think there's any definite proof (either way!). A really godless universe experience could just be a hands-off God with a good investment in a fire-and-forget universe. And if the clouds opened and a glaring vision started to talk to me about things that only I and a creator should know then it could just as easily be Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. Or I'm in a Matrix simulation and it's a feature. Even if I "woke up dead", and saw the afterlife, it could be a Sufficiently Advanced Matrix. Or I'd just come out of one and was still too woozy to understand.
For atheism, I'm implicit about it, not explicit. Soft not hard. Weak not strong. My discussion viewpoint has sometimes therefore been in contradiction to hard-line disbelievers (to whom I sometimes even appear to be theologically-minded) as well to those who wield their own flavour of theism with fervour (to whom I may appear to be at least at the level that Dawkins himself is perceived to be). To be honest, you get more of the latter being unreasonable than the former, but that's just a personal tally.
And then, finally, I also live my life as well/badly as I do without a regard for whether there is a deity. I consider Pascal Wagerians to be foolhardy (any deity that exists should recognise such a bet-hedging manoeuvre from half an eternity away!) and cannot imagine what I can do other than "my best, in general" to improve my own chances of favourable treatment should there be a Judgement Day for me at all.. Which is not to say that it's a cert that I get a through-pass to either the Elysium fields or the Asphodel Meadows, and may still end up in Tartaras for my (co-existent) fatalistic opinion that everything is probably pre-ordained because the universe runs on pure determinism, thus falling down on the "doing my best" bit.
And another four replies. You're talkative tonight, you lot.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 08:39:30 pm
No, but I do believe the story tells us what happen more or less, we humans gain the knowledge of life and death and just live and dieI'm not saying demons cause it, I'm saying (if you need it in science terms) when in the garden of eden, we could not get sick, we were immune to everything, sin caused us to become uimmune, when they eat the fruit, they gained life AND death, AND death.
I dont belive "sin" in of it self kills, it allows for it
A man who gets killed is no more a sinner then you or I
We all sin, they are not caused by Satan, us humans of our own free will keep on sinning.
Wait... Waaaaait. Hold on.
Are... are you a creationist? Do you take the book of Genesis literally?
Was it a fruit? I don't know
Heck I for some reason in vision a tower with zombies ever where and a book called the secret of life, which happesn to be death.
Post by: Starver on December 20, 2012, 08:39:51 pm
Because Pratchett is always fucking right, dammit! Even when he is presenting a subjective view, he is objectively right.
In that way, he is a lot like a girlfriend, except a lot hairier.
Except for beneath his hat, I must point out. Although this is, of course, off-topic, but I doubt anyone'll notice in the current noise.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 08:41:22 pm
yeah, i'm kinda waiting for some other christian to show up, i've kinda lost hope on this one, and the spelling is unbearable.I'm not saying demons cause it, I'm saying (if you need it in science terms) when in the garden of eden, we could not get sick, we were immune to everything, sin caused us to become uimmune, when they eat the fruit, they gained life AND death, AND death.
I dont belive "sin" in of it self kills, it allows for it
A man who gets killed is no more a sinner then you or I
We all sin, they are not caused by Satan, us humans of our own free will keep on sinning.
Wait... Waaaaait. Hold on.
Are... are you a creationist? Do you take the book of Genesis literally?
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 08:49:06 pm
What do you hope for in a believer? I admit I may not be right, I admit you may be right
What more can you hope for?
You ask me a question and I answer them and I dont give you the answer you want? or what?
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 09:02:13 pm
A hard-agnostic, because I don't think there's any definite proof (either way!). A really godless universe experience could just be a hands-off God with a good investment in a fire-and-forget universe. And if the clouds opened and a glaring vision started to talk to me about things that only I and a creator should know then it could just as easily be Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. Or I'm in a Matrix simulation and it's a feature. Even if I "woke up dead", and saw the afterlife, it could be a Sufficiently Advanced Matrix. Or I'd just come out of one and was still too woozy to understand.My thing with agnosticism is that... while it is distinctly possible that there's a deity, given the evidence we have at hand about religions it seems highly unlikely that it's any of those deities. They're just so highly anthropomorphized that I find the chance exceedingly small. You'd just expect that a deity that's so highly involved in human affairs to have left some kind of evidence. Plus the religions are so much more logical and consistent if explained as cultural systems, folktales, and myths as opposed to distorted (or verbatim) contact with deities. So while I'll technically admit the possibility that religions could be correct (to some degree) I find that possibility to be negligible.
Deism, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Agnosticism about deism makes a lot more sense to me than it agnosticism about Christianity. But since most people aren't talking about deism when they talk religion, I find it's easier to just refer to myself as an atheist, as I functionally am.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 09:07:25 pm
they happen to work all over?
I just feel like it was made by SOMETHING intelligent, may be a turtle, may be aliens (in a which came first the chicken or the egg way)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 09:09:38 pm
"lost hope in me"your interpretation of the scriptures is too literal, too detached from my interpretation of facts, that i don't know how to talk with you. i ask you one question and you reply to a different one. we don't use the same dictionary and our discussion would develop into a semantic one rather than morals\metaphysics
What do you hope for in a believer? I admit I may not be right, I admit you may be right
What more can you hope for?
You ask me a question and I answer them and I dont give you the answer you want? or what?
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 09:10:15 pm
Thats sort of how I feel but with why there is a God, I dont think evreything would fit the way it dose if there was no God, all of these laws of physics etc?They work because we wouldn't exist to ask why if they didn't.
But I can understand that position.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 20, 2012, 09:11:31 pm
Given how sea-turtles don't tend to be so parental about the eggs, star turtles may also be exceptional in that the fathers attend the hatchings.
Right, no sex was mentioned, only the hatching of the eggs. Have to re-read that at some point too.
As I often say, I class myself as agnostic, atheist and apatheist.
I never bothered much with agnosticism since all concepts of a deity seem so obviously man-made to me.
I would see myself as an explicit atheist, not a strong one, since you cannot really defend such a position to the end.
I grew up as an atheist, without a fear of judgment or a promise of heaven, so I lead a pretty apatheistic life as well. I do venture into anti-theistic territory sometimes, when political or other important decisions are made based on religious arguments. I also find any imaginable god rather something I'd be opposed to than glad about its existence.
Damn, I get a lot of 504 errors, must be the end of the world or something...
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 09:17:35 pm
I could not help but notice you use "interrelation for me and "facts" for you..."lost hope in me"your interpretation of the scriptures is too literal, too detached from my interpretation of facts, that i don't know how to talk with you. i ask you one question and you reply to a different one. we don't use the same dictionary and our discussion would develop into a semantic one rather than morals\metaphysics
What do you hope for in a believer? I admit I may not be right, I admit you may be right
What more can you hope for?
You ask me a question and I answer them and I dont give you the answer you want? or what?
I cant ask you questions but you can ask me?
Semantics are not facts 9in the sense of they are not "right" we each could reach diffident thing of a sentence
How ever I want to point out, almost none of my things have been literal, i dont belive the fruitis a furit per say, i dont belive sin causes you to die, I don't believe it took 7 days for the world to be made, in fact show me one place I've used it "litarly"
All of my post have been giving what I think happens and why it happens based on the books, very little of it is "litral" the bible is not that, you cant use it that way, but your trying to make it seem like I am, so since your saying I am show me how I am as I disagree, in fact I'd go far as to say if the book is meant to be taken literal then I'm screwed, as its impresive how much of it I dont.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 09:26:02 pm
Spoiler: Really long post vs. Wolfy (click to show/hide)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 09:26:30 pm
i used "interpretation" for me too, read again. i used "interpretation of scriptures" for you because by mentioning the bible you admit that you base your metaphysical beliefs on what it says, literally or interpreted, and i used "interpretation of facts" for me because as an atheist i don't have a book to tell me what's the underlying mechanics of the world. i also didn't mean to say you interpret the bible literally, just more literally than it requires for me to still have hope of having an interesting conversation that does not devolve into discussing semanticsI could not help but notice you use "interrelation for me and "facts" for you..."lost hope in me"your interpretation of the scriptures is too literal, too detached from my interpretation of facts, that i don't know how to talk with you. i ask you one question and you reply to a different one. we don't use the same dictionary and our discussion would develop into a semantic one rather than morals\metaphysics
What do you hope for in a believer? I admit I may not be right, I admit you may be right
What more can you hope for?
You ask me a question and I answer them and I dont give you the answer you want? or what?
I cant ask you questions but you can ask me?
Semantics are not facts 9in the sense of they are not "right" we each could reach diffident thing of a sentence
How ever I want to point out, almost none of my things have been literal, i dont belive the fruitis a furit per say, i dont belive sin causes you to die, I don't believe it took 7 days for the world to be made, in fact show me one place I've used it "litarly"
All of my post have been giving what I think happens and why it happens based on the books, very little of it is "litral" the bible is not that, you cant use it that way, but your trying to make it seem like I am, so since your saying I am show me how I am as I disagree, in fact I'd go far as to say if the book is meant to be taken literal then I'm screwed, as its impresive how much of it I dont.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 09:33:51 pm
Also, I think it's pretty obvious God created us using science as a tool. But that's just how it seems to me.
Also, with the whole controlling the future thing, I don't think God is controlling the future. Sure he knows what will work out best for me and everyone else, but he isn't making me do it. He's just encouraging it.
Also, Wolfy, I know you aren't very good with English, but could you please try to remember it's spelled "does" and not "dose"? It's just killing my OCD.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 09:43:16 pm
Quote
Well, God differs from your mom that he picked the version of you that picked the guitar, and not the version of you that didn't. So God decided to make you so you pick the guitar, effectively deciding whether you pick the guitar or not. Your mom can't do that.you mis my point, what proof you have god picked ANY version?
What if every time god makes a universe, its not "who picks what" clean slate they get to pick.
What if, he makes the universe and I can do say 5 choices, every universe he made I pick something I, it was not the universe he picked that made it happen
it be like a video game, evreytime we play its diffident, we choice evreytime,
where at all dose it say a universe is decide by what action we all take? what if each and every one of them is open to what ever that person picks?
so in this case, he did not pick it, it just a possible outcome he sees, he did not say "I'm going to make the one where Wolf picks jumping of a bridge" its clean slate wolfy 2 picks, of his own free will to do it, but wolfy 3 dose not, its not of cause what one he put them in.
Quote
A time traveller sees the future. God picks out the future.I disagree, you will find no proof of this.
God knows our future because he can see in forward in time where we have already made our choices
Quote
At first, people looked at the ground, and seeing that it certainly looks flat, they took that as evidence that the whole world is flat (and since nobody had contrary evidence, they were fine with believing that).and it took time to find this evdince, just cause we dont have it now dont mean we cant have it later
Then, people started taking closer looks at the moon, the sun and the stars from different points on Earth, finding evidence for the fact that the world is actually round. Smart people accepted the evidence (Babylonians, Mayans, Galileo etc). Others refused to accept.
See how those people always have had a good reason to think stuff? Now see how this doesn't apply to God?
nothing says we cant find evinced of God
Quote
Well, since there is life on our planet, and since there are other planets, it is only natural to believe that other planets have life too. A few centuries ago, people generally believed that there was life on every planet (also the moon), since all planets with testable inhabitation status (read: Earth) were inhabited.Okay, since there is life on earth then odds are something made it, since there is so many laws at play for this to work out at all it seems like something had to made it (read God)
Quote
Okay, you say it was something intelligent. But why in the world would that be exactly the narcisstic split-personality no-sense-of-priority devil-blaming eccentric-rule-inventing vengeful-but-all-forgiving christian God?#1 you will see my believe is its not Satan fault but our own, we choice to sin, so my god dose not do that
#2 rule inventing, mankind has been inventing rules since the dawn of time, he dose nothing there that we have not
#3 it dont have to be that God (thats not my God) it could be aliens, it could be a turtle, it could be anything
but when I look at history see how this connects to everything and how many follow it I cant help but feel SOMETHING is there, do I think any of us got it right 100%? NO, but none of the others seem close to me
dont mean they are not
SOOOOO you been wrong on what I believe, and dont get the idea that I admit I don't know if its that God or not...
have you even tried to read my posts? I know it can be hard, but the points where I point these things out are (realistically) good English, and said several times, others did not seem to have a problem getting that point at least....
Also my God is powerful loving caring all-forgiving christian God.
You do not read that when you look at the bible, that's FINE, neither dose your family members most likely (and they will have diffident form you too in most cases)
but to me God is a loving God, who dose not control our every move, we, and we alone are to blame for our problems, we choice to sin, he dont make us.
Put it this way, you read the bible and see bad, and everything that can go wrong
someone else reads it and sees fairy tale
others read it and see nothing
etc
It dont mean the God you, I, or the pope reads out of it is the real God
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 09:46:05 pm
Also, with the whole controlling the future thing, I don't think God is controlling the future. Sure he knows what will work out best for me and everyone else, but he isn't making me do it. He's just encouraging it.you have to think of it in light of the idea that everything has a cause and an effect, and if there is only one continuous timeline, everything only has one cause and one effect, therefore you can trace all that happens to an original cause: god's action. since god knew the future beforehand, and all the consequences of his action, he is to be blamed by everything bad that happened, for he not only *let* it happen, but he *chose* that it happen among the infinite number of possibilities. if he is able to create a perfect existence in heaven, he would be able to create a perfect existence on earth. he chose not to, and that's why we shit and piss and suffer and hate and starve and die
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 09:56:17 pm
Right. I follow what the Bible says, but I also think I can talk with God through prayer, and so I trust my feelings about God instead of just blindly following the Bible.So what's God saying? Ask him why he doesn't provide evidence for his own existence, because I can't seem to talk to him myself.
Quote
Also, I think it's pretty obvious God created us using science as a tool. But that's just how it seems to me.Science is not a tool, it is an activity practiced by non-omniscient sentients to find out how the world works.
Quote
Also, with the whole controlling the future thing, I don't think God is controlling the future. Sure he knows what will work out best for me and everyone else, but he isn't making me do it. He's just encouraging it.So you doubt his omniscience?
Post by: Hiiri on December 20, 2012, 09:57:23 pm
Right. I follow what the Bible says, but I also think I can talk with God through prayer, and so I trust my feelings about God instead of just blindly following the Bible.
Have you ever changed your mind about something after praying? Or did you just receive confirmation on your pre-existing ideas?
Post by: Descan on December 20, 2012, 10:08:44 pm
And once you have done all the things?Do them again.
Life isn't a checklist, bro.
And as for "Death is better than Alzheimer's" that's true. But doesn't the fact that you had to go to a disease that literally degrades your brain to find something worse than death mean anything?
If you had to choose between a normal life, Alzheimer's, and death... You'd choose a normal life. Alzheimer's and death is a false dichotomy.
Substitute Alzheimer's with whatever you want to.
Oh, and hoping to guess right out of a thousand different religions, and if you don't guess right, whoops burn in Hell forever... That's not a choice.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 10:09:42 pm
But read the bible, they had the perfect life, and they messed it up by sinning, and you still sin as well as IAlso, with the whole controlling the future thing, I don't think God is controlling the future. Sure he knows what will work out best for me and everyone else, but he isn't making me do it. He's just encouraging it.you have to think of it in light of the idea that everything has a cause and an effect, and if there is only one continuous timeline, everything only has one cause and one effect, therefore you can trace all that happens to an original cause: god's action. since god knew the future beforehand, and all the consequences of his action, he is to be blamed by everything bad that happened, for he not only *let* it happen, but he *chose* that it happen among the infinite number of possibilities. if he is able to create a perfect existence in heaven, he would be able to create a perfect existence on earth. he chose not to, and that's why we shit and piss and suffer and hate and starve and die
So he did make it "perfect" (only more he could do was make it where we dont have free will and are nothing more then robots)
whats more your logic is still flawed, where at all is it stated that him pick world #3,4,5,6,or 7 decides what choices we made?
what if that dont? where is your proof, bible or no that thats the case?
Quote
So you doubt his omniscience?All that means is knowing everything, it in no way means that that = that picking earth 1 changes, or affects what choices we make.
Quote
Science is not a tool, it is an activity practiced by non-omniscient sentients to find out how the world works.for us? yes but for them? it may varry well be a tool, in the sense, that's how they prove they exist, thats their evdince to us, that evreything works, and that it all follows law's
some say "it just happen"
But others in past would of said the same about those who went around the world, denying that as proof and saying "it just happen"
Same for mircals, when you see them you think "there has to be a reason" what if the reason it happen, say a antitoxin, is only there because God made it possible? is that not a mircal?
Both sides deny evinced for the other if thats the case
Quote
So what's God saying? Ask him why he doesn't provide evidence for his own existence, because I can't seem to talk to him myself.
so why do you talk to him? to prove he is there?
How do you feel about him? if he exists he is a dick?
do you think he dont exist?
if you answered yes to any of those then maybe that's the reason you have not heard him, or maybe he don't exist, I dont know.
Quote
Oh, and hoping to guess right out of a thousand different religions, and if you don't guess right, whoops burn in Hell forever... That's not a choice.Okay your in a spce station with exsape pods, you can pick form a thousand, only one will "work"\get you out alive, its still a choice
*I do belive that if you believe in "God" and that he loves and came to safe us your sage, names don't matter, God has had 50 in the bible and many more else where,.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 10:16:13 pm
And as for "Death is better than Alzheimer's" that's true. But doesn't the fact that you had to go to a disease that literally degrades your brain to find something worse than death mean anything?That wasn't really my point at all. Askot said having loved ones die was terrible without an afterlife, I just brought that up to say, not always. Wasn't bringing up any dichotomies whatsoever.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 20, 2012, 10:18:53 pm
Quote
But others in past would of said the same about those who went around the world, denying that as proof and saying "it just happen"i gotta sig this
Same for mircals, when you see them you think "there has to be a reason" what if the reason it happen, say a antitoxin, is only there because God made it possible? is that not a mircal?
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 10:21:52 pm
I don't doubt God's ability to do anything. But he isn't going to make us do anything. He isn't interested in making a dystopia.
And I think God knows what will happen if I choose one choice over another not through seeing the future, but just by knowing what happens if we choose that. Like, if I let go of a ball, I know it will fall even though I can't see the future.
Really, I don't know why some people automatically assume knowing what is going to happen is only possible by actually seeing the future. I know eating beans at Moes is going to give me the poops, but I didn't look through a crystal ball to figure it out. I just know what beans do to my body.
Actually, yes.Right. I follow what the Bible says, but I also think I can talk with God through prayer, and so I trust my feelings about God instead of just blindly following the Bible.
Have you ever changed your mind about something after praying? Or did you just receive confirmation on your pre-existing ideas?
I'm not going to go into detail about what is probably the best example of it though, because it's extremely personal and something I am in no way proud of any more.
But I was pretty much an agnostic until three or four years ago.
Prayer also led me to accept gay people, as ironic as that may seem to some of you.
Oh, prayer also stopped me from committing suicide on more than one occasion. Without God, I honestly think I would have been found facedown in the bathtub years ago.
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 10:23:48 pm
Are those not miracles?
would you not say God making us in the first place evince of him?
Post by: Descan on December 20, 2012, 10:38:19 pm
But he doesn't tell us. He doesn't even tell us he exists.
That's why it isn't a proper choice, because if I had the right information, of course I'd choose the working pod.
In this situation, the guy who built the pods would be legally considered negligent at least. And since he knows but does not say, he'd also be guilty of murder through inaction.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 20, 2012, 10:45:20 pm
Spoiler: Another really long post (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bdthemag on December 20, 2012, 10:46:54 pm
So do you deny that if God created the things that cure these things its not a miracal? yes or no, don't mention if you dont think he did, we are talking about him as if he dose exist, and how "bad" you think he is, therefor he dose exist (for this augment)_ and created everything, and ever cure we haveGod didn't create those things, people did. Extremely well educated and intelligent scientists created those cures, there's actually direct proof indisputable proof that Jonas Salk create the vaccine for polio. Seriously, this might be a shock to you but look it up. But let's assume that in your argument that god really did magically cure this disease. He also created it, but why? To punish mankind? You could say that, but why would an all-knowing and all-powerful god create a disease to punish mankind, then cure it. Then do the same thing over and over again throughout history.
Are those not miracles?
would you not say God making us in the first place evince of him?
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 11:09:41 pm
It's not a choice because the guy who built the universe, or escape pods, knows exactly which one will work. And not only that, but he knows what you, or I, need to believe him.But you dont know that, the guy who built the space pod dont know which one will get shot down by bad guys.
But he doesn't tell us. He doesn't even tell us he exists.
That's why it isn't a proper choice, because if I had the right information, of course I'd choose the working pod.
In this situation, the guy who built the pods would be legally considered negligent at least. And since he knows but does not say, he'd also be guilty of murder through inaction.
God knows what choices you will make, but what proof do you have him making this universe means that he picked "any" of our choices
put it this way
Universe 1
universe 2
universe 3
Nothing at all says that each universe has a preset choices, they could all be the same in the end, what I'm saying is him saying
"Universe one" dont mean we will have this convo each time, heck if he restarted it, its possible it would be a diffreint outcome
(I'm not saying thats how it works, just thats ONE way it COULD work)
put shortly, when he made this universe, I dont believe he said "okay looking, ah this is the one where he dies by the worst death ever)
I think its more of he sees all possible outcomes and choices mixed, and if needs to can look to the future to see which one we did pick
But WE not god, picked it, he did not pick a universe that binds us to anything, we still pick
Also he did tell you he existed, in the bible, in the story's passed down, the fact you are here, its all evdince of something more working but you look at it and go "meh its something else"
Quote
But until then, I laugh at you.Like when they made the plane? said the world was round? said evolution happen?
Yeah being on the laughing side history wise dont turn out so well did it?
Quote
Please rewrite this section in proper English, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.Universe 1
universe 2
inverse 3
etc all the way to for ever
THEY ALL NOT set by our choices, they where made and THEN we made the choices, universe 1 is not universe one because I tap dance with monkeys, I'm saying there is no proof that him picking unverse 1 means this list of choices compared to 2
We dont know how universes work
Quote
Even if the odds that a universe randomly creates life were low, the odds that a universe randomly creates life given that there are people in the universe discussing it are exactly 1.You would be wrong. I'm not saying ANYTHING is or not, I'm just saying WE DONT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSES WORK
If you ask a random person "Have you won the lottery", then you'll very likely get a "No" back. But if you ask a random lottery winner, you'll always get a "Yes". Now let's assume that all non-lottery-winners are neutered. After a few generations, everyone will have a lottery winner as an ancestor. Now imagine somebody saying "OMFG MY GREAT-GRAMPA WON THE LOTTERY IM SO LUCKY THEREFORE GOD MUST EXIST". Sounds stupid, right? That's how you sound right now.
We cant say for sure him picking universe 1 means I will do X
Quote
Okay, you believe in whichever god is real, and you believe in a loving, forgiving, non-controlling god. Do these gods know each other?You sir fail, for the last time, I dont know which God is real, I believe mine is, hell, ALL GODS could be real.
Your assuming the real God is NOT mine, why?
Quote
God didn't create the antitoxins. Scientists reverse-engineered the universe rulebooks and exploited them. Also, don't forget that God would also have created the toxins themselves.
oh so when science dose something its science that did it but when its bad things god made it where it could happen?
Pick and chose much?
Yes God created the toxins, they have their uses, they help many things live, just like a cat must eat, or a human must eat so to do microlifes, and just like we protect our selfs so to poison things
Quote
No, the fun thing is that since God already knows the future, he will already know what we pick. Since he can make any universe, he can also make one with versions of us that are the same in all respects except that we would pick another world in this specific case.You forgetting two things
A. your assuming God created the universes based on the choices we made in those, what proof do you have its not?
B. Your assuming that him "picking" a universe means the future cant be changed, my idea is he sees evre possible choice in each area, but not all of them will happen, he also sees each one so that they all happen at one point, when we not god pick it, he did not force it, he made the universe and said "go" and we did what we wanted, God did not make a universe where I tap dance, he made universe where I could PICK to tap dance
Quote
Okay, so you're a theist agnostic now. We're making progressYou miss the point, I BELIVE he exists, but I cant prove it was my point, I've been adding that or words to that affect every post, nothing to do with me changing anything at all.
Answer those questions please.
Quote
God didn't create those things, people did. Extremely well educated and intelligent scientists created those cures, there's actually direct proof indisputable proof that Jonas Salk create the vaccine for polio. Seriously, this might be a shock to you but look it up. But let's assume that in your argument that god really did magically cure this disease. He also created it, but why? To punish mankind? You could say that, but why would an all-knowing and all-powerful god create a disease to punish mankind, then cure it. Then do the same thing over and over again throughout history.So your willing to put that6 God made it possible for evil to happen and so its on him but, when something good happens it was because of science and God deserves nothing?
As to why do it? most desire come form things that are bad for you, colds come form Bactria, which is alive, and thats how it lives, just like a tiger eats a bunny to live
As we eat a chicken to live
they to Infectious disease have to
Autoimmune diseasee: bit harder how ever that cause we really don't know what causes it and if we always had it, maybe inbreeding caused it the first time, maybe it was something else, but dont assumed it just "happen" we really don't know enough to say why it happens science wise even.
An example "Addison's disease"
"The condition arises from problems with the adrenal gland, "primary adrenal insufficiency", and can be caused by damage by the body's own immune system, certain infections"
Thats why that one happens our body gets danged and so cause problems
Can I exspalin every one and why it happens?
No, but neither can science, that dont make science false or less real
some happen because of our diet, some happen because of sexual activity
How did they form? when? why?
Your science cant answer it, but you expect us to?
I belive god has the awnser, but I don't, I'm not him
Post by: Bdthemag on December 20, 2012, 11:21:14 pm
I was simply using your train of thought when suggesting god created the evil things, along with the good things. I was pointing out it doesn't make sense that a god would create bad things to punish mankind, then get rid of them later only to re-introduce another bad thing to punish mankind again. When I told you that Scientists were the one that cured the diseases, that wasn't related to the argument that followed afterwards.
So let me pose a hypothetical question to you. If an all knowing and all powerful being decided to create Earth and all Life on it, why did he make it so extremely complex? You'd think it'd save him a lot of time to make it so things work in extremely simple ways, or just because they do. If he's all powerful, it wouldn't matter if he made life to be an extremely complex series of chemical reactions, or just made it so it worked instantly without any of the complexities. Seems kind of stupid that someone would create something that is very complex, when the could of done the exact same job with less effort and complexity.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 11:25:51 pm
Wolfie-Poo, evolution and the idea of a spherical Earth weren't really laughed at.
And I personally believe the existence of God is much different from a scientific theory or law, as faith and logic are two separate ways to come to conclusion.
Faith cannot be founded upon reason, nor can reason be founded upon faith.
But Bd, shit could be a lot more complicated. The world is surprisingly comprehensible.
No, I'm not saying it's really easy to understand physics, just that it could be a lot fucking harder.
Post by: Bdthemag on December 20, 2012, 11:30:02 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 11:31:04 pm
Quote
Okay, I'm kind of struggling to understand what you're trying to convey. I'm not sure if you speak English or what, but seriously try to proofread your posts at least a little bit.Is it misspell and a diffident word or is flat out wrong? I.e not a world at all
if its not a word, sorry, guess they get through, you should see it before I go through thee or four times!
Quote
I was simply using your train of thought when suggesting god created the evil things, along with the good things.they seem evil to us, I'm sure a bear eating a kid seems evil, but you have no problem with us eating bead? (you may)
Quote
I was pointing out it doesn't make sense that a god would create bad things to punish mankind, then get rid of them later only to re-introduce another bad thing to punish mankind again.that's NOT what he is doing. To me anyways, he deigned a complex system in our body, most dezes are caused by
Infectious disease: which are creatures living, we kill by using guns, they kill by giving us that
its just like how he allows the tiger to attack and with that can sometimes be used on humans.
the autoimmune diseases is harder but often its happens because of problems done by US or outside forces like injury or complications due to life style, in short we are not keeping our bodys like a temple, and God did not make it where we where super human invincible, if our body gets mistreated by us or other forces bad affects happen, that's MOST of these
So let me pose a hypothetical question to you. If an all knowing and all powerful being decided to create Earth and all Life on it, why did he make it so extremely complex? You'd think it'd save him a lot of time to make it so things work in extremely simple ways, or just because they do. If he's all powerful, it wouldn't matter if he made life to be an extremely complex series of chemical reactions, or just made it so it worked instantly without any of the complexities. Seems kind of stupid that someone would create something that is very complex, when the could of done the exact same job with less effort and complexity.
[/quote]
Maybe he did it so we could know someone had to be behind it? if it was simple then there would been easy to say "no intelligent deign" but with this? Evloution? gravity? all the laws of physics known and unknown?
Complex a heck, we dont know the half of it, so what could make this? something thats "higher" level then we are, God.
Post by: Bdthemag on December 20, 2012, 11:37:47 pm
Maybe he did it so we could know someone had to be behind it? if it was simple then there would been easy to say "no intelligent deign" but with this? Evloution? gravity? all the laws of physics known and unknown?The problem is, if he wanted to leave beyond some sign of intelligent design he would simply not allow humanity to find something out then. We've already figured out how evolution works, how gravity works, and a large amount of physics that apply to the earth. We're constantly figuring out new things about life, and the only reason why we only practically know not even half of why the universe works as it does is because we've haven't had a whole lot of time to do so. I mean any real gigantic breakthroughs in science that changed how we saw the world really only happened in the past two hundred years.
Complex a heck, we dont know the half of it, so what could make this? something thats "higher" level then we are, God.
Also, why would god go out of his way to further prove his existence? Being all-knowing, he wouldn't have to worry about people to stop believing him. He'd probably just leave all of the sinners and non-believers to go to hell then, knowing they'd never believe in him in the first place.
Post by: Thecard on December 20, 2012, 11:43:28 pm
I realize someone's spelling does not necessarily reflect on their intellect. I have terrible speech problems, but that doesn't make me an idiot. It does make it really hard to communicate effectively, though. Sometimes your words are misspelled, sometimes they are used incorrectly, and sometimes they just aren't words.
If you could try to write more accurately, even at the risk of brevity, it would make conversing with you so much easier. I don't like repeating myself when I talk, so I think I know what it is like to have to repeat yourself. If it is something you can help, doing so would be an extremely good idea.
If you want help with grammar or anything else English related, feel free to make a thread or simply message one of Bay12's many grammar enthusiasts.
Post by: fqllve on December 20, 2012, 11:45:59 pm
Y'know, short of an editor. :p
Post by: Wolfy on December 20, 2012, 11:47:07 pm
Quote
The problem is, if he wanted to leave beyond some sign of intelligent design he would simply not allow humanity to find something out then. We've already figured out how evolution works, how gravity works, and a large amount of physics that apply to the earth. We're constantly figuring out new things about life, and the only reason why we only practically know not even half of why the universe works as it does is because we've haven't had a whole lot of time to do so. I mean any real gigantic breakthroughs in science that changed how we saw the world really only happened in the past two hundred years.would that be free will then?
He lets you know thr truth of how the universe works, maybe his miracles are not "miracles" (in the sense they cant be explained) but that they can, he has made this whole thing work the way it dose
The more we find out, the more we see how everything works together
finding out things dose not disprove God, the fact that everything works is EXACTLY what intelligent deign means.
Quote
Also, why would god go out of his way to further prove his existence? Being all-knowing, he wouldn't have to worry about people to stop believing him. He'd probably just leave all of the sinners and non-believers to go to hell then, knowing they'd never believe in him in the first place.Two words, free will, yes God CAN see the future, but we are with in time, what that means is all the non believes have gone to hell (to God)
But it has not happen yet in this time
Put it this way, we have not yet reached the point where it happens, as for why prove his coexistence? like I said free will, yes he sees the future, but WE STILL pick what happens and so him showing evinced will get the most people he can to come over.
So put it this way, if god sat down and did nothing did not sent Christ etc, Christina would not be here, God may not be worshiped anymore, and so he did these things with in those time lines
He dose things because while he knows what happens (in the sense of he sees all outcomes)
if he don't get invited then our choice will be not with him.
just because the future "happens" don't mean its set in stone, what if it can change?
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 12:12:49 am
I also suspect that he's intentionally misspelling words on purpose, since he keeps making different misspellings of the same word, and seriously, nobody naturally goes from different to diffident on accident. Most people don't even know that diffident is a word.
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 12:13:43 am
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 12:18:50 am
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 12:22:18 am
Wolfie, is English your second language, by any chance?
Using a mixture of complex and incorrect words is usually a good indicator of a late-learner of a language.
Sometimes it does just come harder to native speakers, but that's fairly rare, if I remember right.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 21, 2012, 12:24:31 am
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 12:26:31 am
Post by: Hiiri on December 21, 2012, 12:27:58 am
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
We act upon our wants. MAGIC! We still cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
MAGIC! We still act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. MAGIC! Therefore we still do not have free will.
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will. MAGIC!
MAGIC! We still act upon our wants. MAGIC! We still cannot control our wants. MAGIC! Therefore we still do not have free will. MAGIC!
I don't get it.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 21, 2012, 12:28:30 am
Post by: Bdthemag on December 21, 2012, 12:29:49 am
Post by: fqllve on December 21, 2012, 12:30:42 am
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 12:33:00 am
We act upon our wants. SCIENCE! We still cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
SCIENCE! We still act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. SCIENCE! Therefore we still do not have free will.
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will. SCIENCE!
SCIENCE! We still act upon our wants. SCIENCE! We still cannot control our wants. SCIENCE! Therefore we still do not have free will. SCIENCE!
Huh. I don't get it. ;D
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 12:49:41 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 01:12:22 am
He already went over this with everyone I thought? That English is his first language, but he is just terrible at it and refuses to try to get better. Pretty sure this conversation was had already at least.Way to miss quote, my exact wording was i went through all of public school being taught how, to tried to get better for over TWO DECADES (longer then your 15 IIRC)
and this is where I am at
don't you EVER do that again or I will report you to the mods
I did not "refuse" i tried for two decades to no avail, after two decades what more can I do?
I will not stand for someone actting like I never tried, i did LONGER then you HARDER then you
I've earned the right to say **** it, if it has not got better yet why belive it will with any more time?
Also guys this is free will
Quote
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern in philosophy has been determinism, which holds that the future is determined completely by preceding events
We act upon our wants. We cannot control our wants. Therefore we do not have free will.
Nothing at all says free will means you can do what ever you want to at all, thats you adding something that is not there
Quote
a distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action, that is, separating freedom of choice from the freedom to enact it.God only promises free will, you can choice, but not always act on things
dont mistake it for anything less or more
Post by: MaximumZero on December 21, 2012, 01:16:29 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 01:17:58 am
"refuse to try" etc acting like because he did it means I can, he even mentions "having no respect for me" in multiple posts
He is NOT on my side, he is spreading lies and making look like I never tried
I've said it mutiple times, (most of them directed at him, its in my sig that I've tried, he STILL keeps saying it) what more can I get him to stop saying lies?
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 01:25:37 am
Post by: MaximumZero on December 21, 2012, 01:29:19 am
Please don't take things so personally. Please try to remember that we're just a bunch of semi-anonymous posters on a message board. I consider a lot of these people to be internet buddies, but they wouldn't know me from Joe on the street if we were to meet in real life, despite my logging nearly two and a half months on this particular corner of the internet. There really isn't any reason for you to take what any of us say so seriously that it upsets you. Just chill, bro.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 01:36:30 am
I dont mind how they feel, I mind how they make others feel about me
And there IS reason, I've been told by that guy that my over two decades of work amounts to NOTHING
internet or no, that fucking burns (which is one reason I gave up cause even in real life people do that ALL THE TIME)
your trying your hardest and no matter what its NEVER good enough, your not trying, your making excuses, your a whiner, whats that say about my hardest? not a damn lot huh?
How would you feel to have that through your whole life, and basically being told "learn to spell" which I have not been able to do "or you cant be in society" (I'd bet 50$ many of you already ignore my posts, whats more is there is NOTHING i can do about it
And then there was all through grade school "if you dont learn to do this you will never get a job"
"you will neber be able to do X or this or that"
Your punishing me, ironing me for something I've been trying to fix my whole life and have had no luck, and be told its an "Excuse" or its a lie?
that hurts, that hurts a LOT
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 01:38:12 am
Also guys this is free willLike I said - a lot of self-contradictory baggage. There's two possibilities. Either your choices are determined by some part of the world, or they are not. If they're predetermined then the Free part of free will doesn't exist. And if your actions aren't predetermined, then you make "choices" at random and don't have the Will part of free will.QuoteFree will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern in philosophy has been determinism, which holds that the future is determined completely by preceding events
The only coherent way to talk about decision making is to understand that you're a being who works deterministically and, as part of a deterministic process within you, can reflect upon your choices and determine to alter your self (ie. change your mind) such that you will choose differently than you would if you had not decided to change. Volition, choice and all of that are just expressions of you as a self-altering, deterministic process.
That said, why are we even discussing free will at all? Even if, hypothetically, we all agreed on what Free Will means and its implications regarding whether or not God is good or bad, that still doesn't address the actual topic of this thread: "Should you believe in God?"
God being a very very very good person does not make him more likely to exist than if he were a very very very bad person. Morality does not predict truth, truth predicts morality.
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 01:39:00 am
Wolfy, you should make a Life Advice post to discuss your ongoing spelling woes. This isn't that thread.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 01:40:36 am
We dont have truth when ti comes either way, both sides require faith, we are not at the level where we can prove or disprove God, so we cant, and so we talk about what we can, the belies styles and why people follow God or not
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 02:02:50 am
both sides require faithNot really.
One side requires a massive amount of faith, the other requires that the person cannot accept something without evidence. It's not like believing something is a choice, it's just something that arises based on what a person knows (unless they try really hard at lying to themselves until they start to actually believe it; but I can't think of any place where that happens frequently.)
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 02:32:12 am
1. When considering which theory out of two different theories about how the world might be is probably true, you should always prefer less complicated theory to more complicated theory. In mathematical terms, P(A) ≥ P(A & B) for all events A and B.
2. The complexity of a theory is equal to the number of bits required to specify a perfect simulation of that theory in a universal Turing machine (ie. an idealized computer).
Because God is a very very complicated thing to simulate, all of the theories that specify God & the World are more complicated than theories that are just the World without simulating God. And this means that, unless we find evidence that rules out all of the theories without God that are less complex than the simplest non-ruled out theory with God, we should end up preferring a no-God theory to all of the God theories.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 02:36:29 am
Yeah, as I've previously explained, you can get to "God almost certainly does not exist" from observation of the world plus two very basic premises that I'm confident that you (Wolfy) would agree with:I disagree, with God, only one thing has to be true, that God exists, if that is true then evreything can be exsplained by god.
1. When considering which theory out of two different theories about how the world might be is probably true, you should always prefer less complicated theory to more complicated theory. In mathematical terms, P(A) ≥ P(A & B) for all events A and B.
2. The complexity of a theory is equal to the number of bits required to specify a perfect simulation of that theory in a universal Turing machine (ie. an idealized computer).
Because God is a very very complicated thing to simulate, all of the theories that specify God & the World are more complicated than theories that are just the World without simulating God. And this means that, unless we find evidence that rules out all of the theories without God that are less complex than the simplest non-ruled out theory with God, we should end up preferring a no-God theory to all of the God theories.
with out God
Laws have to be made in the universe with OUT any reason for them being made, why was gravty made long before planets? what causes gravtiy, how do these things "react" what caused them to react? how where they made to be able to react?
Why dose everything work? why dose it look logical?
(with out laws the universe would not be here)
thats just the start
You claim it is, I disagree, I believe in god for the same reason except that IMO God is a lot less complex then evrey sing TRILLION Pound TRILLION of things harping on their own
where is your proof God is more "complex"? we dont even know half the stuff of the unverse, we dont know how complex it is to be told the truth, for all we knw some things are so complex we can NEVER know the awnser
and the biggest problem is even if we DO take this stance, it still can be wrong, both ways.
so I think the point is mute
We cant in any way really know which is more complex as we dont know a fraction of either of them, and even if we did, it dont means its right or should be followed, for example it was simpler to say the world was flat, that evloution did not exist, that we had always been here, that whites where "better" then blacks based on skin color
all wrong of course
if anything history has shown not to believe that as its almost always wrong, how ever it dose have its place, but due to all of these I dont think it belongs in this subject
You cant say "God almost certainly dose not exist" no science has proven beyond a showdown of a doubt some power made all of this posible, doubt they ever will
Quote
One side requires a massive amount of faith, the other requires that the person cannot accept something without evidence. It's not like believing something is a choice, it's just something that arises based on what a person knows (unless they try really hard at lying to themselves until they start to actually believe it; but I can't think of any place where that happens frequently.)Wrong, faith is belving with out seeing, or really knowing, you, by definition are saying
"if I cant prove it, it don't exist"
thats faith that if its not there where you can see it, then it don't exist
you put your faith in evince and that if we cant find God right now, it means he cant exist, ecen when history shows there are plenty of things we could not proved existed in till recently
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 02:53:57 am
You can't get a complexity discount for taking atoms out of your theory, or not explaining why gravity works. We know that atoms exist and that gravity happens. Any theory where there aren't any atoms and gravity doesn't work isn't a theory that could be true. You still have to come up for some rule that distinguishes things that will happen from things that won't happen. Let's look at an example:
We know from observation that if you drop an apple out of a tree, it will accelerate at about 9.8 meters per second per second on earth. If you want to work out which theory of gravity is more simple, the non-God theory looks like:
1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out what where everything will move due to gravity.
and the God theory looks like:
1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out where God wants everything to move to.
2. Everything moves to where God wants it to move.
and that second one is more complicated regardless of what formulas you're using to describe gravity/God's desires regarding the falling of apples.
Basically, if "The Universe exists how it does because God made it that way" is part of your theory, then you have to also specify why God made it the way he did instead of some other way that he could have made it.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 03:01:15 am
and then the big question you add how did it come to be with out somehting "making it" that way
and so both are the same by your logic
because if you take out God you have to ask" why is it this way" (Unless you dont care, in which case you can do the same for God)
Quote
1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out what where everything will move due to gravity.The problem with your logic is
A. assume the foulness are true, and assume for some reason that gravity gives a "consent pull" with out someone setting it that way, then you have to ask why it was able to do this, with out something make it.
For evreything you "claim" God has your side dose as well
Quote
1. Do math according to these formulas. The formulas put out where God wants everything to move to.You misunderstand, again it would not be this, it would be *God uses the exact same foumla as the one above, so in closing its either with God
2. Everything moves to where God wants it to move.
Same fourmla, why did he do it this way
with out God, same foulard how did it become this way with out god.
if "it was made by ____" with out help, you have to add "how it did it and why it came to be"
Even them out
I'd agure there is one differences, we know why God made it a way that WORKS, because he is inelegant and knows ways that dont, but how would the unverse know?
so you have to add how did it account for what word work and not work.
with intlegnt degin its clear to see why, they knew it would work
but with out? there is no reasson for it to "just fit"
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 03:11:04 am
They have... Logical conclusions, I guess. I'd take faith over logic any day, but they're two different ways of looking at life and its meaning.
I accept that Christianity (my view of it,'at least) is of logical. I use the empty space for faith.
Well, I'm not about to try solving logic puzzles through faith, it's all about context. :P
Spoiler: Long Post to Wolfie (click to show/hide)
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 03:14:03 am
Either you have an infinite list of justifications, or you stop at the first step and say "That's just the way things happen to be."
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 03:17:50 am
The question "Why does gravity work the way it does?" doesn't really have an answer. We know the way it works, but there's answer to why it doesn't work some other way besides, "That's just how gravity works." If you say "Gravity exists because God wants it to exist." then you also have to ask "Why does God want gravity to exist?" and "Why does <insert reasons here why God wants gravity to exist> make God want gravity to exist?" and so on all the way down.Cant we say the same thing for God?
Either you have an infinite list of justifications, or you stop at the first step and say "That's just the way things happen to be."
your preety much saying "ignore all the questions on my side, but ask every single one on your side, and you cant do what we do and say "that's just the way he made it"
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 03:49:42 am
Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: God.
Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.
it should be
Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: Just because.
since that middle step can be cut out.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 03:51:00 am
Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.
answer for all of them right there
which makes them equal
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 03:54:56 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 04:04:09 am
That doesn't actually answer the question of "Why does gravity exist" unless you add back in "God makes gravity exist." at some point. At which point you've added back in the needless complexity.but neither dose yours, your acting like with god we NEED an answer but with out we can just say "meh" and using that as proof God dont exist, it dont work that way
if you can say "cause" with out God, then you should be abel to say it with him
If "just cause" works for your side why not the other?
either you add it to both or you dont add it at all, other wise your just TRYING to make your side more logical by giving it an unfair advantage of demanding the other side explain why while you can just say "becuse"
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 04:14:58 am
Best: An actual answer to why the world is the way it is that doesn't ultimately end up being "just because" at some point.
Second Best: Saying, "just because" right away without any extra justifications.
Third Best: Saying, "just because" after 1 extra justification.
Fourth Best: Saying, "just because" after 2 extra justifications.
N+2 Best: Saying, "just because" after N extra justifications.
If adding in the step where you say "because of God" isn't necessary to get to either an answer or "just because", you shouldn't do it. It doesn't add anything.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 04:23:40 am
God gives that answer, God can answer it because he knows the best ways to do things and in this case that was the best way
Quote
Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: God.
Q: Why does God make gravity exist?
A: Just because.
it should be
Q: Why does gravity exist?
A: Just because.
Do you deny or not deny, you just did the very thing you told me not to do here?
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 04:28:27 am
It is late here though. Grek could be talking about a bad case of genital hiccups and I might not be able to tell.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 04:30:10 am
Non God, you can remove "why dose gravity work" and answer with "it just dose"
but you cant do that with God
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 04:43:36 am
why dose Gravity exist if there is no God? what caused it to work that way?translates to:
God gives that answer, God can answer it because he knows the best ways to do things and in this case that was the best way
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: Because God wanted gravity to work that way.
Q: Why did God want gravity to work that way?
A: Because that is the best way for gravity to work.
Q: Why is that the best way?
A: <insert reasons why gravity is a good thing here>
Q: Why does that make gravity better?
A: It just does.
where it should just go:
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: It just does.
In order for your theory to predict where the apple will fall, it still has to have all of the physics-y bits in there somewhere. Just saying "God" doesn't help you predict anything. And since adding in all those intermediate steps doesn't help you explain anything beyond what just physics will explain, it's just adding in a dangling node labelled "God" and re-labeling "The Physics of Gravity" as "God's Divine Will Regarding Gravity" without changing what the theory predicts will happen.
Basically, in order to justify adding in God to your theory, God has to do something. If God+Physics predicts the same thing as just Physics without adding God, then you don't need God. It's dead weight on your hypothesis.
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 04:44:27 am
You're all the antichrist.
Technically, anyone who isn't Christian is an "antichrist" just like someone can be anti-war without being the physical embodiment of peace.
What most people mean by antichrist is actually just referred to as "the beast" coming out of he sea, or as the little
Just thought I'd share that. If anyone tells you Obama is the antichrist, just look right at them and honestly say "No, he's Christian, I'm the antichrist." I swear, if I was atheist I would tell people that every chance I got.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 04:48:14 am
This:How ever your assumingwhy dose Gravity exist if there is no God? what caused it to work that way?translates to:
God gives that answer, God can answer it because he knows the best ways to do things and in this case that was the best way
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: Because God wanted gravity to work that way.
Q: Why did God want gravity to work that way?
A: Because that is the best way for gravity to work.
Q: Why is that the best way?
A: <insert reasons why gravity is a good thing here>
Q: Why does that make gravity better?
A: It just does.
where it should just go:
Q: Why does gravity work the way it does?
A: It just does.
In order for your theory to predict where the apple will fall, it still has to have all of the physics-y bits in there somewhere. Just saying "God" doesn't help you predict anything. And since adding in all those intermediate steps doesn't help you explain anything beyond what just physics will explain, it's just adding in a dangling node labelled "God" and re-labeling "The Physics of Gravity" as "God's Divine Will Regarding Gravity" without changing what the theory predicts will happen.
Basically, in order to justify adding in God to your theory, God has to do something. If God+Physics predicts the same thing as just Physics without adding God, then you don't need God. It's dead weight on your hypothesis.
it just dose, cant work with God, why cant it?
WHY do you need to justified Gods, thing but not the other side?
You dont need god no, but like with God you need to explain why he picked it, with out God you have to expelling why it made it that way, either you can use "just cause" with God or you cant use it for the other side
no other way around this at all
I'm sorry man but your picking what you want to list here
Your also assumign its possible in the first place for Gravity to exist with out God, if god is needed for it then your idea fails
what proof do you have that god is not needed?
"just cause" dont mean God is not involed, it means it happens cause it happens
God may of caused it to happen, a bunny may of caused it to happen, it dont awnser why, and so it dont mean god is not in there
whats more your logic is still faulty, for the biggest reasson you claim this is based on whats more complex but then you cut out evrey single thing that's required for gravity to work and say "it dont matter" and say thats proof God is not real...
"just cause" dont tell you how it works, its making an excuse to say your way is faster.
Post by: Reudh on December 21, 2012, 05:00:10 am
Hypothetically speaking, would it be possible for God to exist within a black hole?
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 05:01:59 am
I mean I believe he would, we CANT know of course.
I no of no reason he could not
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 05:11:09 am
Otherwise, literally all you're doing is adding "...and also God exists and is the reason why all of that was created." to the end of whatever physical process you're explaining. It's just like adding, "...and also gravity unicorns exist and their unicorn magic is the reason why all of that was created." to the end of an explanation of gravity. It isn't helping. It's just adding useless junk at the end of your theory for no good reason.
Now, if we do discover some aspect of gravity that isn't explained by physics unless we also assume God exists, THEN we would have a reason to think that God exists. God existing would be explaining something. If saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ, Levitate!" could make things float, then you would have a good reason to think God exists. But nothing like that ever happens.
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 05:20:38 am
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 05:24:29 am
But, let me try it.
Ok, no. The test object did not levitate.
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 05:26:06 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 05:26:08 am
Anything that Physics says is required for gravity to exist is also required by Physics+God for gravity to exist. In order to avoid having the stuff that physics says has to exist for gravity to exist, you have to stop believing that physics is true or stop believing that gravity exists. At which point you're just left with "God", and that doesn't explain anything on its own.So you dont think its possible the reason gravity works the way it dose ie becuse someone made it that way?
Otherwise, literally all you're doing is adding "...and also God exists and is the reason why all of that was created." to the end of whatever physical process you're explaining. It's just like adding, "...and also gravity unicorns exist and their unicorn magic is the reason why all of that was created." to the end of an explanation of gravity. It isn't helping. It's just adding useless junk at the end of your theory for no good reason.
Now, if we do discover some aspect of gravity that isn't explained by physics unless we also assume God exists, THEN we would have a reason to think that God exists. God existing would be explaining something. If saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ, Levitate!" could make things float, then you would have a good reason to think God exists. But nothing like that ever happens.
You think a car runs on it own and no one made it becuse its "simpler"
Show me one other time ever something is made form "nothing" in the sense of
It's adding something that can awnser that "why is that there" instead of saying "just cause it is"
To me God is why we are here, he made gravity the wya it is etc, so when you think Gravity needs extra to add God, as far as I'm concerdhe is the reasson, your logic dont work man, simpler == its the thing, ever. thats not even sound logic.
more so when we get in to this and you start saying "we dont need to know why it works"
but we have to know why God made it?
if you just said God made it, thats IT nothing more needs to be add, thats the same as saying "it just dose"
It adds nothing new, it just chnages "it just dose" to "God"
no more steps are added, stop saying they are, we will get no where if you keep using a double standard.
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 05:44:46 am
1. A practical why where what you really want to know is "How does this car work and how did it get made?" That's a practical, answerable question, and the correct answer is to talk about engine parts working together to turn tires and a car factory with a car company paying people to put together cars.
2. A behavioral why where what you really want to know is "What makes people want to make cars? What made them want to make this specific car?" where the correct answer is to talk about different car designs and what cars are used for and the history of the automobile.
3. A philosophical why where what you really want to know is "Why does anything exist? What's the purpose of existence?" where the correct answer is to just shrug and say "I don't know. It just exists and doesn't seem to have any obvious purpose to it."
We need to know how gravity works, what gravity works on, who gravity works on, what could stop gravity from working, when gravity works, and what particles go around to make that work happen and things like that; but "What's the purpose for gravity existing in the first place?" doesn't really have an good answer.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 05:45:58 am
Are you saying that God can or can not exist and it dont matter?
or???
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 05:51:19 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 05:57:24 am
I have multiple good reasons
some are pesronl, others are as easy as I cant physicality wrap my head around a God not being there, its like makes no sense with out
Post by: Reudh on December 21, 2012, 06:21:44 am
Yes, if he wanted to...
I mean I believe he would, we CANT know of course.
I no of no reason he could not
But don't black holes consume all forms of matter and energy?
Is God as a metaphysical entity a form of energy?
For that matter, if you sent a person into a black hole, as their 'soul' is metaphysical energy, wouldn't it get sucked into the black hole and destroyed?
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 06:26:53 am
#2 there may be things out side of God\souls that happen in space that put black holes to shame
What is God? i believe if he wanted he could change in to what ever he wanted, dose he have a prefers form? I don't know
and honestly if God is powerful then... he just "turns off" the black hole, or heck he may be whats on the other side, who knows.
(Star trek reference)
We dont know what a soul is, we dont know what type it is. so no you cant say it would be, becuse first we haveto know what it is and see it happen and we have not
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 07:07:22 am
Could you write a program that simulates the universe given a copy of the laws of physics and a programming tutorial?
Could God have written a program that simulates the universe?
Let's say you write a program that simulates a universe (and you definitely don't need to be omniscient to do that), and get a list of all coordinates of all particles at every point in time. Could you look at this list and find out if there were humans in the universe or not?
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 07:14:08 am
Quote
Okay Wolfy, here's a few questions.simulates? yeah, but god did it for real, I could write a program that lets me control dwarfs, it dont mean anything.
Could you write a program that simulates the universe given a copy of the laws of physics and a programming tutorial?
just becuse we can simulate something means nothing, making it for real is whole no the ball game
and we can only do it by follow what hs alredy been done and we STILL dont know half of what gose on so as we go on, we will found our simulation si more and more wrong, can you guess what it will be in 2000 years?
Could God have written a program that simulates the universe?
Quote
Let's say you write a program that simulates a universe (and you definitely don't need to be omniscient to do that), and get a list of all coordinates of all particles at every point in time. Could you look at this list and find out if there were humans in the universe or not?Whats this got to do with anything?
I'm not following, could I? I would not know, it would take forever, could God? he dont need to look at a list.
Post by: cerapa on December 21, 2012, 07:26:15 am
We dont know what a soul is, we dont know what type it is. so no you cant say it would be, becuse first we haveto know what it is and see it happen and we have notMay I request some definitions for everything being discussed? Especially with the souls bit here, because its sorta disconcerting for me to see arguing over a topic which you just stated that you havent actually defined as anything.
Honestly, if you dont know what something looks like, what it does or what it is, then what is even the point of using the word, if it doesnt mean anything?
If this was discussed earlier, would someone please point this out to me? I looked through the last couple of pages, but didnt find anything particularly clear, and Wolfys writing doesnt allow me to read through more, or to read very carefully(just a fact, no offense intended).
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 07:38:14 am
Do you not know what the idea of a "soul" is or do you need a definition for another reasson
best I can give you, your soul is more or less "you" its not part of your physical body in the sense when you die it gose on and most belive its your soul hat gose to heaven
We dont know enough about the souls, its kind of like asking someone form the 1930's to describe the moon.
I dont describe it cause I cant, just like I cant describe God, or hevean they are FAR beyond my limiited understanding
Post by: cerapa on December 21, 2012, 08:05:10 am
Just say whatever features you know that they have, and then you can have a discussion from that.
So, a soul is something that does not require a physical body, and contains the mind(I assume thats what you mean by the "you"). "physical body" is a bit of a fuzzy concept so lets go from the mind bit.
There are couple of mechanisms by which something could contain a mind. The 2 that immediately spring to mind is 1) The soul leads the body. 2) The soul is attached to the mind, and mirrors any changes that the physi cal body goes through and decouples at death, but does not actually affect anything.
1) Has the interface implication, which is that if something affects the physical, it is measurable. This interface has been looked for by a shitton of people, but there really havent been any findings.
2) Has the problem of being untestable, so it is inherently pointless as a source of discussion. Unknowables are no fun.
Souls are a bit of a dead end IMO for discussions. What about god, what can you tell me?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 09:07:57 am
QuoteOkay Wolfy, here's a few questions.simulates? yeah, but god did it for real, I could write a program that lets me control dwarfs, it dont mean anything.
Could you write a program that simulates the universe given a copy of the laws of physics and a programming tutorial?
just becuse we can simulate something means nothing, making it for real is whole no the ball game
and we can only do it by follow what hs alredy been done and we STILL dont know half of what gose on so as we go on, we will found our simulation si more and more wrong, can you guess what it will be in 2000 years?
Could God have written a program that simulates the universe?QuoteLet's say you write a program that simulates a universe (and you definitely don't need to be omniscient to do that), and get a list of all coordinates of all particles at every point in time. Could you look at this list and find out if there were humans in the universe or not?Whats this got to do with anything?
I'm not following, could I? I would not know, it would take forever, could God? he dont need to look at a list.
Well, Wolfy, my point is that if you had the complete laws of physics available to you (even those who aren't discovered yet), a computer with really much memory, and a bit of programming and math skill, you could write a simulation for an universe that is indistinguishable from our own universe, with inhabitants completely unaware that they live in such a simulation. Such a simulation could probably be written in a few hundred lines of code in any major programming language (given the extreme simplicity of the laws of physics), and would require a humanly manageable amount of intelligence.
Now would this programmer care much for the humans that populate his simulation? In fact, he almost certainly wouldn't even know that there were humans living inside his computer, since he never bothered to look. And even if he found an intelligent species using a visualization program (he would probably not find any, since most of space does not contain life), he wouldn't be able to understand them (that would require learning a whole new language or more), much less read their minds, even less manipulate the simulation in such a way as to answer those beings who "somehow" think they know his name. So while it is relatively okay to believe that someone created the universe, it is absolutely not okay to think he is able to care about us.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2012, 10:06:10 am
Well, Wolfy, my point is that if you had the complete laws of physics available to you (even those who aren't discovered yet), a computer with really much memory, and a bit of programming and math skill, you could write a simulation for an universe that is indistinguishable from our own universe, with inhabitants completely unaware that they live in such a simulation. Such a simulation could probably be written in a few hundred lines of code in any major programming language (given the extreme simplicity of the laws of physics), and would require a humanly manageable amount of intelligence.Not really. It has been shown quite convincingly and from many different angles that it's impossible, even in theory, to predict quantum events accurately (particularly with regards to momentum/position, energy/time and so on). If such a simulation were possible it would go against the established laws of physics.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 10:12:28 am
Post by: Descan on December 21, 2012, 10:16:51 am
I mean, I could, feasibly, believe he exists. I could believe he created the world. That doesn't mean that, with my moral judgement that he presumably gave me, that I would think him to be a good person, or worthy of respect.
And before you say "But God is so much greater than us, he has a higher morality!", why didn't he give us the capability to understand it, to understand why he created a 13 billion year universe but then told us 7 days? To make our universe contain so many ways for us to die, like a gamma ray burst. If I create a species from utter scratch, I wouldn't make them so inferior to myself that they can't understand my morality or plan.
He gave us the capability to understand what we understand and no more, at least for now. Why does he judge us based on that? I am no more capable of believing in my heart that he exists, based on the evidence before me, than I am of flying naked without a plane. And yet he supposedly judges me to punish me for eternity for that.
And that whole "judgement for eternity" thing, what's with that? Why would a deity that sticks you somewhere that you can never change from, can never repent after the fact, make a universe where change is the only constant? That seems a bit silly.
I am what God made me. What I am, is someone incapable of believing God made me.
Post by: Argembarger on December 21, 2012, 10:17:14 am
Shit's crazy. Like, loco.
And yeah, not being able to perfectly predict quantum events would render the simulation merely an approximation of the universe. And it would most likely look and behave radically different than the one we're in.
Well, let's assume the universe uses a RNG to decide quantum events. Then the programmer simply needs to implement that RNG with the same seed (he has all the universe's specs, remember?) to write a universe implementation.
But, it isn't just flat-out random. Unless you're saying that everything in the universe is being constantly "observed" all the time by virtue of the fact that it's being tracked by a simulation.
EDIT: Actually, yeah, now that I think about it, if you kept in memory every single planck length of the universe with every single physical property attached to it or affecting it, you would require a memory bank that is many orders of magnitude larger than the universe it would be simulating. Unless you start approximating this stuff on a macro level, in which case it's not going to be a good enough simulation.
Post by: RedKing on December 21, 2012, 10:42:54 am
The way that I've syncretized science and Taoism is that "the Tao" is essentially the combination of physics and determinism. It is the pattern of the universe, the natural cycles of the world, including even the birth and death of stars, orbital mechanics, etc.
It views the world as a homeostatic system--essentially, as long as we don't fuck it up trying to intervene, the universe will regulate itself.
It's not unlike the Christian assertion that there is a "divine plan" behind everything that happens, only in Taoism the plan isn't tied to any sort of sentience or "intelligent design". There's a reason for everything (often unknowable from our limited vantage-point). But that doesn't mean it's a logical reason, more like chaos theory.
One of the core ideas of Taoism is one that Kurt Vonnegut summed up as "the problem with humans is our damn big brains". Because out of all animals we're uniquely able to construct social conventions and assign abstract values to things that wouldn't naturally exist otherwise, we subject ourselves to emotional anguish unknown in the rest of existence. We spend arduous hours of labor, we lie and cheat and steal and kill...all for something that has little inherent value. Or as Douglas Adams put it,
Quote
This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
In a lot of ways, Taoism was the rebellion and reaction to Confucianism. Confucians said people are basically bad, and you need lots of rules to make sure everyone does what they need to, and if everyone would just follow the rules everything would be fine.
Taoism said people are basically people, neither inherently good nor evil, and that the rules were the damn problem. The more laws you make, the more criminals you make. The more wealth you hoard, the more you have to worry about it being stolen. The more you deny your inner self, the more stress you cause by trying to "fit" the mold society is trying to impose on you. Confucianism frowned on alcohol, because it caused "improper behavior". Taoism celebrated being tipsy (not staggering drunk...excess is frowned upon), because it helped you to shed all these social inhibitions and be your true self.
The end goal is to be happy in this life, because there is no guarantee of anything beyond. And the way to that happiness is to learn to simply be. I always use the example of a deer. The deer doesn't sit around and worry about being the fastest or strongest deer, it doesn't worry what its deer friends say behind its back, it doesn't fret that someone is nibbling all that grass it wanted, etc. Most importantly, it doesn't try to be a deer. It just is. The problem is that as humans who have lost that natural ability to just be, we have to try to get back to that. And in the act of trying, we're not being natural. (Which brings up the whole concept of wu wei, or "acting without acting"). It's like seeing something out of the corner of your eye...if you look directly at it, it's gone. You have to learn to just be without trying. To accept whatever comes, to be content, to find your happiness in existence itself.
It ain't easy, and I'm far from good at it. But it's rung true to me for 20+ years now.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 10:44:37 am
And yeah, not being able to perfectly predict quantum events would render the simulation merely an approximation of the universe. And it would most likely look and behave radically different than the one we're in.
We're only unable to perfectly predict quantum events from inside our own universe because we have incomplete specs and data, also imperfect measuring capability. Since the simulation has complete data, it can find out which quantum state will be observed.
EDIT: Actually, yeah, now that I think about it, if you kept in memory every single planck length of the universe with every single physical property attached to it or affecting it, you would require a memory bank that is many orders of magnitude larger than the universe it would be simulating. Unless you start approximating this stuff on a macro level, in which case it's not going to be a good enough simulation.
Well, I never said that the universe simulation had to run inside the universe itself. Also, since it is possible to calculate the algorithm's error margin, and since it is possible to push this error margin arbitrarily low by adding numerical precision and reducing granularity, you can approximate the universe arbitrarily closely, until it is indistinguishable from the universe itself.
Post by: inteuniso on December 21, 2012, 11:08:02 am
Religion, at it's heart, is about combining faith and reason. It is a set of moral codes based on communal beliefs(faith) combined with stories explaining natural phenomena (reason).
If you abandon faith, you're going to become a bitter person. You see the logical side of things, the pessimist's (realist's) side. But if you continue to see beauty in the everyday world, the beauty in life itself, then you will still have happiness.
I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.
Experience can be explained by science. But science should never be used to replace the experience.
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 11:11:57 am
I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.I disagree.
You do not have to believe in god or whatever to do things or appreciate things.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 21, 2012, 11:17:22 am
Post by: anzki4 on December 21, 2012, 11:20:05 am
-snip-You seem to assume that atheism = caring only about logic/science, which is quite frankly moronic view. Your examples - fishing, affection, victory - had nothing to do with religion, but can be experienced and enjoyed by religious people and atheist alike.
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 11:21:50 am
There's a tvtropes page and a xkcd for this. I'll find the former and entrust someone else with the latter.
Spoiler: found (click to show/hide)
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 21, 2012, 11:26:21 am
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 11:31:34 am
I love Bay 12 ;D 8). And here's the TVTROPES page. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMarigoldsAnd there's another XKCD linked in TvTropes article too, which is basically the opposite of the other one.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 11:35:35 am
Here is my major problem with atheism: if you don't combine it with any philosophy such as humanism, you end up with people who care more about themselves than others.
Morality comes from genetics and socialisation.
Most modern religions have a fair amount of humanism in them, but there are enough examples in history where religions threw humanism over board and decided that they had to kill heretics or non-believers.
Atheism does not give you moral values. Religion does, but these values are not necessarily humanistic.
And there's another XKCD linked in TvTropes article too, which is basically the opposite of the other one.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Hm. I can see the link in the code, but when I click the spoiler, I don't see the picture.
Post by: Helgoland on December 21, 2012, 11:41:14 am
1) Kids are malleable.
2) At no point is there a sudden change of personality in the kid.
3) From 1) and 2): Therefore our modus of viewing the world, our beliefs and concepts, are influenced by our upbrinnging,
Can we still have actual free will?
Post by: Argembarger on December 21, 2012, 11:46:38 am
-snip-
To cut this short, I think the real issue I'm taking with your premise is that, even with a full and complete list of every actual mechanism that makes the universe run, this thing would not be trivial to implement.
What's stopping you or me from just making up a complete system of physics from scratch and simulating a universe right now in 100 lines of code or less? It doesn't have to look or behave anything like ours. The physical laws can be utter hogwash, just as long as they are self-consistent.
I think there's a fundamental element missing here. I don't think a simple system can truly contain a more complicated one within itself, and still be called simple.
Maybe the user interface would be simple. But the interface is just a small piece of the system.
I really think a computer that would actually be capable of doing this would be indistinguishable from an unimaginably enormous cybergod.
And by then we've settled the issue of religion. God isn't in the machine. God /is/ the machine.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 11:50:43 am
Can we still have actual free will?
We perceive the world as if we had a free will. But every tiny decision we make is determined by thousands of things, like body chemistry, electricity in the brain, wiring of brain cells that lead to habits, opinions and perceptions. We don't actually have a free will, but are formed by genetics and upbringing and what we make of it.
Post by: Argembarger on December 21, 2012, 11:54:20 am
Can we still have actual free will?
We perceive the world as if we had a free will. But every tiny decision we make is determined by thousands of things, like body chemistry, electricity in the brain, wiring of brain cells that lead to habits, opinions and perceptions. We don't actually have a free will, but are formed by genetics and upbringing and what we make of it.
I think that being self-aware and sentient shakes up the game a little more than that.
Unless we only think we're self-aware.
But then we can think that we only think we're self-aware.
But then, we can think that we think that we're only self-aware.
This cycle can expand forever. This stuff's really complex.
Post by: Descan on December 21, 2012, 12:02:44 pm
Post by: Starver on December 21, 2012, 12:04:26 pm
Laws have to be made in the universe with OUT any reason for them being made, why was gravty made long before planets?Simple to answer, this one. Planets (as we know them, and on the premise of no divine hand involved) could not be made without gravity. As such we are 'privileged' to be in a universe where "gravity was made, then planets".
Quote
[...]why dose it look logical? (with out laws the universe would not be here) thats just the startIt's an interesting start, especially asking "why things are like they are". Usually leading to one or other of the Anthropic Principles, some of which are akin to ID. But at the other end of the scale "if it didn't work, it wouldn't be here". Or "if it worked differently then it would be different", and then either we wouldn't be here (because we couldn't exist under a system that works differently) or 'we' would be different and wondering why the (different) system was so well attuned to create our (different) selves...
Quote
You claim it is, I disagree, I believe in god for the same reason except that IMO God is a lot less complex then evrey sing TRILLION Pound TRILLION of things harping on their ownEither way, I say there's a single cause. I'd personally go for that single cause cascading the whole set of 'laws' (our interpretations of how the universe ticks, which are doubtless approximations, just like Newton is good enough until you need to take Einstein into account, etc). Whether we can derive the TOE/GUT that is the core of the universe is... not something I'm confident about. But we can refine what we know about gravity and relativity and quantum mechanics and the like to get an "ahh... that's why there's a Speed Of Light/Higgs Boson/good chance that toast will fall butter-side-down/etc, etc, etc".
God's complexity (IMO) comes from the fact that now we have to apply intention to the mix. It's not "particles were created with a mutually attractive force between them, which leads to them clumping, leading to [everything else, as a series of dependant events]", but "why does God think that it would be a good idea to have stars and planets and moons, instead of just one large flat sheet for everything?" Indeed, God could intend that tomorrow (it's too late to end the world and renew it today, methinks[1]) we're suddenly living on the infinite flat world, under the 'new rules'. Which we may wish to try to derive if we're not simultaneously 'converted' to imagine that things are exactly the same and things have always been like that.
But then there's no stable foundation for anything. Where do you go with that? I mean, one day it might be inexcusable to wear mixed fabrics and the next it wouldn't be?
Simpler to at least imagine that (until and unless we're provoked to think otherwise) there are hard and fast impersonal rules to the universe, which might need investigating and interpreting, but otherwise aren't at the whim of something/someone outside those rules. Theosophy, OTOH, really only allows the interpretation (to as much or as little ultimate success as the mundane counterpart). I don't believe there's much in the way of Practical Theosophising able to be done. (Outside of Discworld, natch.)
Quote
Wrong, faith is belving with out seeing, or really knowing, you, by definition are sayingAs far as I am concerned I'm not saying "It [i.e. God] doesn't exist", but I'm certainly not assuming He does. I'm more in a "If I can't prove it then I can't do anything useful with the given hypothesis" camp. I think a hard-line no-God position is a... stance... that I see flaws in. But I don't believe I've seen too many people with that stance in this thread.
"if I cant prove it, it don't exist"
thats faith that if its not there where you can see it, then it don't exist
you put your faith in evince and that if we cant find God right now, it means he cant exist, ecen when history shows there are plenty of things we could not proved existed in till recently
[1] Maliciously ignoring temporal omnipotetencies there.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 21, 2012, 12:05:42 pm
-snip-
To cut this short, I think the real issue I'm taking with your premise is that, even with a full and complete list of every actual mechanism that makes the universe run, this thing would not be trivial to implement.
What's stopping you or me from just making up a complete system of physics from scratch and simulating a universe right now in 100 lines of code or less? It doesn't have to look or behave anything like ours. The physical laws can be utter hogwash, just as long as they are self-consistent.
I think there's a fundamental element missing here. I don't think a simple system can truly contain a more complicated one within itself, and still be called simple.
Maybe the user interface would be simple. But the interface is just a small piece of the system.
I really think a computer that would actually be capable of doing this would be indistinguishable from an unimaginably enormous cybergod.
And by then we've settled the issue of religion. God isn't in the machine. God /is/ the machine.
The issue isn't whether or not it's feasible; It's whether or not it's possible. Saying that God can know everything means in itself that God can model the entire universe in his mind, and if someone claims it as true then you can use it in an argument.
Post by: Starver on December 21, 2012, 12:13:09 pm
Yeah, I bet it's like that "you can't..." Like licking your elbow. You know you can't but you try, just in case...I can lick my own elbow. (On a good day, at least. It's a close call, admittedly.)
That is all. I'm really adding nothing to this thread by announcing this, of course.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 12:16:41 pm
I hope you did not severe any body parts to do so. That would be cheating, you know.Yeah, I bet it's like that "you can't..." Like licking your elbow. You know you can't but you try, just in case...I can lick my own elbow. (On a good day, at least. It's a close call, admittedly.)
Post by: Argembarger on December 21, 2012, 12:17:29 pm
The issue isn't whether or not it's feasible; It's whether or not it's possible. Saying that God can know everything means in itself that God can model the entire universe in his mind, and if someone claims it as true then you can use it in an argument.
A god would either have to have a way to store information in a way that takes up no space, or otherwise keep it outside of the universe.
The first way seems impossible if the god is inhabiting the same universe it is tracking, unless the "abstract model" is indistinguishable from the thing itself. So, unless "god is the machine", I'ma argue it can't be done. Although admittedly, being some kind of god would help me see it from a perspective that isn't rooted in what I think I know about the universe (information requires space, entropy, chaos theory, black hole, !!science buzzwords!!, if(needs_to_read_more_books(me) == true) { stop talking; } else { blabber; } etc)
The second one challenges the definition of "universe", I guess. We can get multiverse-y. If we aren't the only system or we are a some subset of the real system, then anything goes probably and it becomes really hard to constructively communicate about it
Interesting discussion 'round these parts. Maybe I should have lurked more before just jumping in waving my pants around, but eh, fun times.
Post by: Hiiri on December 21, 2012, 12:25:44 pm
Here is my major problem with atheism: if you don't combine it with any philosophy such as humanism, you end up with people who care more about themselves than others.
Er, this applies to pretty much everything. You can mix & match atheism and humanism, atheism and nazism, christianity and humanism, christianity and nazism. (Do you really capitalize christianity and nazism in english?? And english too???)
"Here is my major problem with grocery shopping: if you don't combine it with any philosophy such as humanism, you end up with people who care more about themselves than others."
I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.
Every point you make is, to me, the opposite. Standing next to a river, knowing about the mechanics how nature works, is much more awe-inspiring than any supernatural claim you can come up with. Not to mention you need science to be able to fish those trout. But, I guess this could depend on how our individual brains are wired.
Science will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. True, but science never made a soccer goal either. I don't know why you think science should give you this feeling, when that's not the purpose...? If you're implying that religion does, it doesn't, you first have to add a community around that religion, THEN you might get that feeling. It's the community part that's important, not the religion.
And most of all, science gives the most powerful experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory. Flying to the Moon and Mars. Curing diseases of the world. Feeding the hungry. I can't even begin to imagine how religion could possible give these experiences.
Edit: Desperate attempt at fixing grammar.
Post by: k33n on December 21, 2012, 12:28:33 pm
Firstly, regarding god(s):
An argument from order and laws of physics is not in favor of a theistic creator entity. Firstly, if we suppose that the universe is too complicated and orderly to come from "nothing", then using an omnipotent all-powerful all-knowing planner and watcher of reality as an explanation is without merit. Consider: Where did god come from? if he has always existed, then it a better explanation that the cosmos has as well; if he came from nothing, then why not the cosmos also?; If you say we can not know then you are blinded and chained by your dogma.
Regarding souls:
Ask yourself, what is a soul?
We have yet to prove that a soul does or does not exist. However, what we do know eliminates the common conception of a soul and leaves little room for the religious definition. Your memories, experiences shaping your personality, the lense of your perception, your wants, the love you feel for those close to you, what you care about in life, your concept of right and wrong are all products of the structure and chemistry of your brain. This is not up for debate: the entire body of medicine and neuroscience confirms this. People who suffer brain injuries can become different people, lose memories and not recognize there children. Brain tumors have turned caring people into murderers. Dementia erodes and destroys the person who was once there.
The brain does not survive death. Therefore, all of the aforementioned does not survive death. We can say this with confidence and accuracy. What then is the soul? All that is left - if it indeed exists - is pure consciousness: a non-local point of being, without meaning, without emotion, without thought, without love, without sense, without experience.
Would you still consider this a soul?
Post by: Argembarger on December 21, 2012, 12:36:18 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 21, 2012, 01:33:05 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 02:14:00 pm
Here's a question:Free will never said you would not be influenced by out side force, just that it is you coming to the decision and nothing says ?"you will like pizza" yes eating it will lead you there but just becuse you chocse to eat pizza dont mean you dont have free will
1) Kids are malleable.
2) At no point is there a sudden change of personality in the kid.
3) From 1) and 2): Therefore our modus of viewing the world, our beliefs and concepts, are influenced by our upbrinnging,
Can we still have actual free will?
Quote
An argument from order and laws of physics is not in favor of a theistic creator entity.why not? why would an intelligent being not create rules and regulations, we do it.
I disagree with this big time.
what makes you think God = cant make sense?
\
Quote
It's a chicken and an egg thing how ever, if we assume it can be created with out a God, then so could it be created WITH a God
Firstly, if we suppose that the universe is too complicated and orderly to come from "nothing", then using an omnipotent all-powerful all-knowing planner and watcher of reality as an explanation is without merit. Consider: Where did god come from? if he has always existed, then it a better explanation that the cosmos has as well; if he came from nothing, then why not the cosmos also?; If you say we can not know then you are blinded and chained by your dogma.
No mater which one you take we can agure well why cant the other one have happen?
and then we both will "claim" this one is more likely to happen but the fact is we dont know the odds, we dont have any idea which is more likely, saying we do is liying to our selfs
your adding stuff to your side due to bias thinking "A god would not have a universe of laws" (why is there ANY reason to think this)
How come the unversed can exist form nothing, but not God, Why MUST the universe just always exist be the awnser?
to use your own words If you say we can not know then you are blinded and chained by your dogma.
Quote
The brain does not survive death. Therefore, all of the aforementioned does not survive death. We can say this with confidence and accuracy. What then is the soul? All that is left - if it indeed exists - is pure consciousness: a non-local point of being, without meaning, without emotion, without thought, without love, without sense, without experience.The bible claims we will be reborn, maybe it means a new body, maybe it means a whole new life with out the memory of this one
Maybe we become like him and just "know evreything" in which case we don't need these things
Maybe there is something inside our brains, outside, or what not that science cant find yet, just like there was a time we could not find how our brains work (and still cant find out most) dont mean its not there, I'm not saying it is, just that history shows just becuse we cant find how it works dont mean it dose not
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 02:20:08 pm
The diffidence is in the simulation it just happen, with God he MADE each and everything possible
Now would this programmer care much for the humans that populate his simulation? In fact, he almost certainly wouldn't even know that there were humans living inside his computer, since he never bothered to look. And even if he found an intelligent species using a visualization program (he would probably not find any, since most of space does not contain life), he wouldn't be able to understand them (that would require learning a whole new language or more), much less read their minds, even less manipulate the simulation in such a way as to answer those beings who "somehow" think they know his name. So while it is relatively okay to believe that someone created the universe, it is absolutely not okay to think he is able to care about us.
He made us in his image (this dont mean we look like him it could mean he made us with care, or in case of the simulation "spent a long time" coding us)
Your assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bibe claims God is not
Post by: Telgin on December 21, 2012, 02:24:27 pm
Free will never said you would not be influenced by out side force, just that it is you coming to the decision and nothing says ?"you will like pizza" yes eating it will lead you there but just becuse you chocse to eat pizza dont mean you dont have free will
Of course your decision to eat pizza was itself influenced by an enormously long chain of events. If you subscribe to the idea of determinism (which I do), then everything is a direct consequence of some action before it. Every single decision I make is a direct consequence of my experiences and brain structure. It's entirely mechanical.
Even taking that aside, if one believes that God knows everything that will happen, I'd say it's pretty hard to make an argument that we have free will since we're bound to do what He knows we will do anyway. And He's the one who set up the future, so He's basically mandated everything that has and will happen. We never got a say in the matter.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 02:29:58 pm
Quote
Of course your decision to eat pizza was itself influenced by an enormously long chain of events. If you subscribe to the idea of determinism (which I do), then everything is a direct consequence of some action before it. Every single decision I make is a direct consequence of my experiences and brain structure. It's entirely mechanical.but we dont belive that, thats the whole point of "free will"
thats what we belive
Quote
Even taking that aside, if one believes that God knows everything that will happen, I'd say it's pretty hard to make an argument that we have free will since we're bound to do what He knows we will do anyway. And He's the one who set up the future, so He's basically mandated everything that has and will happen. We never got a say in the matter.god sees every reality, every possible out come at once, so there are a lot of ways
A. assuming there is only "one" unversed
he merrily goes to look at the future, like we will one day, us going to see the future allows us to know it, but dont me we forced it, he sees the future, not makes. he dont "set up the future" while he could he gives everything its will of its own
B. If there are multiple, still the same except he sees all of them, and they are no influnced by which one he "made" but what choices we and living things make
Where do you get the idea becuse God knows the future means he set it up? time travel or even just being out side of time s not a new thing, heck science fiction, and even theroys of science believe this to be possible, even with out a God.
Post by: inteuniso on December 21, 2012, 02:41:06 pm
Didn't say you had to believe in god or whatever.I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.I disagree.
You do not have to believe in god or whatever to do things or appreciate things.
And I agree with what you say. I'm just saying that it's important to enjoy life, while appreciating the science behind it. I was just giving examples of personally enjoyable experiences: everyone has their own activities to relax and to stop thinking (or at least not think as much).
I personally believe that every event that has a probability of happening happens. We may not be in the universe where it happens, but it happens. We cannot control what happens when, but we can influence the probability of certain events, which in turn affects the probability of other events. Math and science govern the multiverse in an incredibly chaotic fashion, but one that satisfies all possible conditions and outcomes. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I know that people always appreciate an act of kindness, even if they don't actively show it. I have a huge range of personal beliefs, and I know that they will change over time: I only hope that they will change for the better as I learn more about existence.
Post by: Telgin on December 21, 2012, 02:48:43 pm
but we dont belive that, thats the whole point of "free will"
thats what we belive
If that's what you choose to believe, then so be it.
Everything we know about the brain points toward it being a machine. Its behavior is described by electrical and chemical interactions between neurons. These are things that follow the laws of physics and thus are well described as deterministic events (quantum mechanics aren't a factor at this scale). This would lead, without evidence to the contrary, to the conclusion that all decisions are ultimately made based on the physics of the universe. That's why I believe in determinism.
The only alternative would be that our "soul" is somehow able to bypass this requirement, but then that places a lot of doubt on the need for a brain in the first place and so I don't really buy it.
Quote
god sees every reality, every possible out come at once, so there are a lot of ways
A. assuming there is only "one" unversed
he merrily goes to look at the future, like we will one day, us going to see the future allows us to know it, but dont me we forced it, he sees the future, not makes. he dont "set up the future" while he could he gives everything its will of its own
B. If there are multiple, still the same except he sees all of them, and they are no influnced by which one he "made" but what choices we and living things make
See, but this would require God to not know everything. If you believe that, great, but every Christian sect that I know of at least believes that He does indeed know everything. Just knowing each possible future isn't enough: He has to know which one will be the true one else He doesn't know everything.
Quote
Where do you get the idea becuse God knows the future means he set it up? time travel or even just being out side of time s not a new thing, heck science fiction, and even theroys of science believe this to be possible, even with out a God.
It follows from the idea that everything is a consequence of its history. If everything happens for a reason, which I think most people agree on, then that means that the future is set. Every event that happens right now causes the events that happen in the next instant, continuing on into infinity.
If that's true, and God is the one who initiated it all, and God knows everything, then that means He knew how history would play out when He initiated it. And apparently He was satisfied with it, or else He'd have done it differently. Thus he set it up.
Oh, and I'd be absolutely astonished if it turned out time travel was possible, due to causality violation.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 03:13:31 pm
Quote
See, but this would require God to not know everything. If you believe that, great, but every Christian sect that I know of at least believes that He does indeed know everything. Just knowing each possible future isn't enough: He has to know which one will be the true one else He doesn't know everything.He DOSE he knows which one you pick cause he can see the future, but he did not "make you" you picked it, thats one way of looking at it
another is he knows us so well
Just like I can forsee what my kid will decide to do, it dont me I picked it for them and while my actions may influnce it, in the end THEY picked it
We can predict what a friend is going to do, what would a being that is so many more times smarter then us do?
Know the horse is going to win?
Even if he DOSE know what we will pick, we SILL picked t, he did not force us to pick it
Quote
It follows from the idea that everything is a consequence of its history. If everything happens for a reason, which I think most people agree on, then that means that the future is set. Every event that happens right now causes the events that happen in the next instant, continuing on into infinity.but lets assumed that while yes time can be moved around in its "stuck for us"
Yes the future is set in the fact that if you go there you see our actions
but WE PICKED those actions, its not like God made the future and then said "Wolfy is going to tap dance"
I picked to
Quote
If that's true, and God is the one who initiated it all, and God knows everything, then that means He knew how history would play out when He initiated it. And apparently He was satisfied with it, or else He'd have done it differently. Thus he set it up.Wrong, giving us free will he allows us to change our futures, your assuming
A. time cant be changed. what proof do you have that we cant just
B. God is not capable of "knowing everything there is to know" (the true meaning of optimenit, and means knows "all" there is to know) but no where dose it say what that "All is" maybe he dont know which choices we make unless he looks to the future
Maybe some things cant be known by anyone
Your assuming also that God can even
your assuming if God initiated it a diffident way, him doing that is what ends up picking what we do, I believe he mad the unverse, and WE get to pick
He may of made 50 worlds
and each one is a blank slate, nothing about picking world one form him means that it will happen
your also assuming God controls the future
Can he do these things? could he mess with it? YES, but the idea is he has giving us free will and so dose not do these things
A. "set up" the future in a diffident away, if we do have free will and he dont get in our way of it then how CAN he set it up? he lets us pick
He is all powerful and all knowing, but that means knowin all that CAN be known, and doing all that CAN be done.
Never says what CAN be known and done and not.
Post by: Telgin on December 21, 2012, 04:12:21 pm
He DOSE he knows which one you pick cause he can see the future, but he did not "make you" you picked it, thats one way of looking at it
another is he knows us so well
Just like I can forsee what my kid will decide to do, it dont me I picked it for them and while my actions may influnce it, in the end THEY picked it
We can predict what a friend is going to do, what would a being that is so many more times smarter then us do?
Know the horse is going to win?
Even if he DOSE know what we will pick, we SILL picked t, he did not force us to pick it
We choose an action in the same way that a car's engine chooses to have a piston go up or down. The decision comes completely from circumstance and mechanics. By designing an engine in a particular way, you've basically forced it to work a certain way. By designing our brains in a certain way and orchestrating history, God has effectively forced us to choose certain things. You could say you still made the decision, but it's ultimately pointless because you were always going to make that decision.
It's different from knowing someone well because while you can estimate and predict, God knows.
Quote
but lets assumed that while yes time can be moved around in its "stuck for us"
Yes the future is set in the fact that if you go there you see our actions
but WE PICKED those actions, its not like God made the future and then said "Wolfy is going to tap dance"
I picked to
You chose to tap dance because of the situation you were in. You were somewhere where tap dancing was appropriate or expected, and you knew how to tap dance, hadn't done it in a whlie and realized that it would make you feel happier so you chose to do it. See, that's the thing. Everything you do is done for one reason or another. If you didn't know how to tap dance, you wouldn't choose to do so. If you're not choosing to do things because of your experiences and abilities, then how are you choosing them? Randomly? That's not free will either.
How God factors into this isn't immediately obvious, but again, if He's the one who sets up your surroundings then ultimately He's the one who is going to be making those influences that cause you to do things. But unlike setting up such a situation for someone you know well, God knows with absolute certainty how specific events are going to affect you and what consequences they will have on your future decisions.
Quote
Wrong, giving us free will he allows us to change our futures, your assuming
A. time cant be changed. what proof do you have that we cant just
B. God is not capable of "knowing everything there is to know" (the true meaning of optimenit, and means knows "all" there is to know) but no where dose it say what that "All is" maybe he dont know which choices we make unless he looks to the future
Maybe some things cant be known by anyone
...what evidence do you have that we can "change time?" I assume you mean time travel or something like that, which I'm pretty sure any self respecting physicist today will admit is not likely to be possible.
And you can argue semantics, but to me, knowing everything means just that: there's nothing God doesn't know. Nothing.
Quote
your assuming if God initiated it a diffident way, him doing that is what ends up picking what we do, I believe he mad the unverse, and WE get to pick
He may of made 50 worlds
and each one is a blank slate, nothing about picking world one form him means that it will happen
Um... sorry, having trouble following you here.
Quote
your also assuming God controls the future
Can he do these things? could he mess with it? YES, but the idea is he has giving us free will and so dose not do these things
A. "set up" the future in a diffident away, if we do have free will and he dont get in our way of it then how CAN he set it up? he lets us pick
He is all powerful and all knowing, but that means knowin all that CAN be known, and doing all that CAN be done.
Never says what CAN be known and done and not.
Well, if you choose to believe that God doesn't know the future then it's less of a problem. I admit I don't know if the Bible states that He does know the future, but it's pretty heavily implied that God knows everything that's going to happen.
I'm not saying that God reaches down and flips switches in your brain or whatever to make you do things at any given moment. No, I'm saying that when God created the universe He knew everything that would happen from that point on and that included every decision you've ever made. That makes your decisions pointless and hollow.
The real reason I'm arguing this of course is that it's pretty silly for God to judge people based on their behavior and decisions when He knows what they're going to do and is in control of their life circumstances.
If you don't believe God knows the future then discussing this point is probably pointless.
Post by: lemon10 on December 21, 2012, 04:32:23 pm
He DOSE he knows which one you pick cause he can see the future, but he did not "make you" you picked it, thats one way of looking at itWhen he created the universe, he set it up knowing exactly what everyone would do, and what exactly would for its whole history (assuming that you believe he is omniscient that is). He did this in the exact same way when you type up a program and tell it to print: "Hello World" if X is 10, and you set X to 10, then it will print "Hello World", just like you knew it would.
another is he knows us so well
Just like I can forsee what my kid will decide to do, it dont me I picked it for them and while my actions may influnce it, in the end THEY picked it
We can predict what a friend is going to do, what would a being that is so many more times smarter then us do?
Know the horse is going to win?
Even if he DOSE know what we will pick, we SILL picked t, he did not force us to pick it
Sure, you "chose" to do whatever you are going to do, just like the program "chose" to print "Hello World".
Yes, you are billions of times more complex then a program like that, but since god is omniscient, it doesn't matter how complex you are.
but lets assumed that while yes time can be moved around in its "stuck for us"But he did. When he was creating the universe, he looked at it, and knew that in 2012 you were going to tap dance. He could have slightly altered how he created the universe, or slightly changed any of his interventions (which assuming he was omniscient, he also knew what he was going to do even before he created the universe) and could have easily stopped you from tap dancing if he wanted to.
Yes the future is set in the fact that if you go there you see our actions
but WE PICKED those actions, its not like God made the future and then said "Wolfy is going to tap dance"
I picked to
Wrong, giving us free will he allows us to change our futures, your assumingIf he doesn't know everything all the time, then he isn't omniscient.
A. time cant be changed. what proof do you have that we cant just
B. God is not capable of "knowing everything there is to know" (the true meaning of optimenit, and means knows "all" there is to know) but no where dose it say what that "All is" maybe he dont know which choices we make unless he looks to the future
Maybe some things cant be known by anyone
It doesn't matter if its impossible to know, if he doesn't know it anyways then he isn't omniscient. Similarly, if he chooses not to know everything, while he has the potential to be omniscient, then he really isn't.
Your assuming also that God can evenYour first few sentences in this quote are a bit hard to read, and so I might be getting the meaning wrong.
your assuming if God initiated it a diffident way, him doing that is what ends up picking what we do, I believe he mad the unverse, and WE get to pick
He may of made 50 worlds
and each one is a blank slate, nothing about picking world one form him means that it will happen
your also assuming God controls the future
Can he do these things? could he mess with it? YES, but the idea is he has giving us free will and so dose not do these things
A. "set up" the future in a diffident away, if we do have free will and he dont get in our way of it then how CAN he set it up? he lets us pick
He is all powerful and all knowing, but that means knowin all that CAN be known, and doing all that CAN be done.
Never says what CAN be known and done and not.
God doesn't control the future. He made the universe, and set everything into motion, the physical laws (that he created) control the future. But he doesn't need to control it to have chosen exactly how it would turn out when he created it.
Knowing what exactly what will happen isn't a active choice on his part. It is done as long as he is omniscient.
FAKEEDIT: Gah, beaten by telgin.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 21, 2012, 04:40:52 pm
Are we slowly arriving at the conclusion god is a coder, and the universe is his code running?Ultimately, that's essentially what it'd *have* to be with a creator deity. Perhaps not "code" as we know it, but logic and rules and whatnot, yes.
Post by: Hiiri on December 21, 2012, 04:41:30 pm
Are we slowly arriving at the conclusion god is a coder, and the universe is his code running?
No way, that would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. We can't have one of those.
Post by: k33n on December 21, 2012, 05:25:41 pm
Quote
why not? why would an intelligent being not create rules and regulations, we do it.
The fact that the universe has laws that cannot be broken makes theism impossible by definition. Also, see below.
Quote
It's a chicken and an egg thing how ever, if we assume it can be created with out a God, then so could it be created WITH a God
How come the unversed can exist form nothing, but not God, Why MUST the universe just always exist be the awnser?
to use your own words If you say we can not know then you are blinded and chained by your dogma.
Firstly, either there are gods all the way up, creator intelligence after creator intelligence after creator intelligence, or God has always existed. If God has always existed, then the argument for the need of designers for complex things is moot. If that argument is meaningless, then the need for a god to justify the existence of the universe disappears. Since the argument from God is not empirical, but based on tradition and religion, any scientific reason for god is now gone.
Quote
The bible claims we will be reborn, maybe it means a new body, maybe it means a whole new life with out the memory of this one
The bible says a lot of things, almost none of them good. It is bronze age rantings of murderers, schizophrenics, and tyrants who did not even realize that the earth was round. To read that book as factual borders on mental illness.
Quote
Maybe there is something inside our brains, outside, or what not that science cant find yet, just like there was a time we could not find how our brains work (and still cant find out most) dont mean its not there, I'm not saying it is, just that history shows just becuse we cant find how it works dont mean it dose not
The issue is what we do know. What I listed are things that are 100% bound to the brain. If there is a force that is not part of the brain, it is not the religious definition of a soul.
Post by: Starver on December 21, 2012, 05:29:46 pm
To simulate the universe, would you just take a preposterous point-cloud of planck lengths? And update every single point once for every single planck time?Had to take a break from the thread for a few hours, and may have lost the idea of the original (also, probably we're several pages further on now...) but...
Shit's crazy. Like, loco.
And yeah, not being able to perfectly predict quantum events would render the simulation merely an approximation of the universe. And it would most likely look and behave radically different than the one we're in.
Are we arguing that a machine in this universe can simulate this universe? Goedel would like a word with you, methinks.
However, we simulate universes all the time. Conway's Game Of Life, frexample, or some form of Langton's Ant or a Rule 110 system. (And here I'm restricting to ones without PRNG... Although clearly seeded PRNGs would be similarly deterministic, even if 'actors' in the wouldn't have a chance of predicting it themselves.) Each has a (potential!) universe arising from simple rules but can create complexity. My favourite analogy is that if there were to be a creature within that 'universe' that (by its own standards) is 'conscious', in some manner that arises out of the 'physical laws' the universe works on, then it probably couldn't perfectly understand the particular environment it is in, let alone know anything about how free electrons float around doped silicon substrates store the data about its universe (which would, if 're-encoded' by the creature's own artisnship into in-universe examples, be too large to store.
Scale that up to what outer Universe might contain our own sphere of knowledge, and be 'simulating' it, and... And Planck-ticks are Planck-ticks to us, but the FPS of our 'game' in the outer world may be dreadfully slow... We would't know.
And I do love linking to XKCD strips, but I reckon I've already given the Pebbles one to this thread before. Look it up, if you don't already know it. ("xkcd A Bunch of Rocks"->your favourite search engine)
Not that I think there's a "guy in the desert" doing this sort of thing. It's as likely to be just a complex but spontaneously[1]-formed symmetry-breaking situation in (meta-)space-time. A bit like a BZ-reaction platter or something.
[1] We can argue over the accuracy of that word later...
Post by: Helgoland on December 21, 2012, 05:31:57 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 05:46:21 pm
I liked a point someone made in another thread: If we have free will, there's bound to be something influencing the processes in our brain. That would mean a violation of the law of coonservation of energy would take place; and so we make free will power plants - making power through the sheer force of our will!Cue the Matrix.
Post by: Helgoland on December 21, 2012, 05:51:45 pm
Post by: Starver on December 21, 2012, 05:52:32 pm
I hope you did not severe any body parts to do so. That would be cheating, you know.Yeah, I bet it's like that "you can't..." Like licking your elbow. You know you can't but you try, just in case...I can lick my own elbow. (On a good day, at least. It's a close call, admittedly.)
I do not have any (particularly) severe body parts, no. Neither did I sever any them. ;)
Shall I tell you my trick? You might be able to do it yourself. Most people when trying to lick their elbow use a "handbell ringing" movement, a given hand in a fist and thrown over the respective shoulder, elbow pointing forward , and then you strain your neck to try to get your chin 'around' your elbow such that your tongue can get to the tip of the elbow.
Instead, point your chosen arm straight out forward (elbow would be downwards). Then twist your arm inwards. You can't (or shouldn't) twist it the wrong way, because twisting your hand 'outwards' just twists the forearm. You're looking for a shoulder-rotation, which brings the elbow round 180 degrees to the top. Now most of the translational movement is moving your shoulder-blade backwards, bringing the elbow towards where your mouth and tongue wait in (possibly salivating) expectation.
Then you crane your neck forward, and possibly twist a bit, and see where you can get the tip of your tongue (Gene Simmons still probably has an advantage at this point). I'm betting you can at least get it closer to the nobbly bit that is your elbow bone than when you try it with the bent-armed technique, mapping the same spot on your underlying skeleton. (If you actually drew a dot on the skin at the tip of your bent elbow with a marker pen/sharpie/whatever, then I'm betting you'll also be able to drag the skin towards your mouth and reach that even easier with the straight-arm technique, if your skin is as loose as mine in that area.)
HTH, HAND. I just know you'll be a bunch of elbow-lickers in no time. ;)
(GreatOrder... have them shave a bit off your upper arm, while you're getting it reattached and it'll be even easier!)
Post by: Fenrir on December 21, 2012, 06:05:16 pm
Here is my major problem with atheism: if you don't combine it with any philosophy such as humanism, you end up with people who care more about themselves than others.I cared about people back when I was a theist, and I care about them now. Of course, I can’t ask you to take my word for it, but I hope you will reconsider your position.
e:
Religion, at it's heart, is about combining faith and reason. It is a set of moral codes based on communal beliefs(faith) combined with stories explaining natural phenomena (reason).I am not really sure how religious explanations could be considered reason. They aren’t deduced, they aren’t very open to revision, and they are not discarded if the evidence suggests something else.
Further, I don’t think you are using the term “faith” correctly. I have never seen the word used to mean a set of moral codes, and I can’t find a dictionary that supports that usage.
If you abandon faith, you're going to become a bitter person. You see the logical side of things, the pessimist's (realist's) side. But if you continue to see beauty in the everyday world, the beauty in life itself, then you will still have happiness.Now you seem to be using “faith” to mean something else. If I set aside moral codes, I’ll see the logical side of things and become a bitter person?
I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.I strongly believe in fishing. I believe fishing can, and will, provide tasty trout to eat. I also believe, however, that fishing will never be able to change the oil in your car. It will never clean the leaves out of your gutter. It will never make you a sandwich. It will never find Carmen Sandiego.
Because it was never supposed to do that.
Experience can be explained by science. But science should never be used to replace the experience.Being an atheist doesn’t mean you have to stop fishing to do science all day.
Post by: Starver on December 21, 2012, 06:08:08 pm
Your assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is notNot wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible. Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so. Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...
(edited for speeling eroors.)
Post by: Micro102 on December 21, 2012, 06:51:45 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 21, 2012, 06:55:02 pm
Most theists who do good things tend also to be humanists.
Post by: Max White on December 21, 2012, 06:59:46 pm
A lot of Europe has been getting more and more secular, coupled with a rise in atheism, and crime rates are dropping. This is directly opposed to some of the more highly religious nation, where things are turning to shit.
Big shout out to the Muslim brotherhood. While most theists are pretty peaceful, these guys seem to want the death of everybody who doesn't have a dint in their forehead from banging it on the floor.
Post by: Fenrir on December 21, 2012, 07:02:56 pm
Actually theists without humanism would still care about others because their religion tells them to. It's the stoning to death of certain peoples and other immoral actions that are the problems.
Quote
Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)
Atheists usually already have the second part, so to tell an atheist that he needs humanism—at least with the general definition that I have here—is simply to tell him that he needs to emphasize the value of human beings. Theists would be selfish too if they didn’t emphasize the value of humanity; it isn’t relevant to my point whether it’s because “Jesus sez so” or not.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 07:05:17 pm
so your going to take the bible at the parts you wantYour assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is notNot wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible. Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so. Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...
(edited for speeling eroors.)
(God is all powerful, he allows slavrey etc)
But ignore things that are good because it comes form the bible?
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 07:06:59 pm
I do not have any (particularly) severe body parts, no. Neither did I sever any them. ;)Must have been thinking of "severed". Neither my English nor my typing are as good as I pretend they are.
My tongue is roughly 2 inches too short (or for aesthetic reasons let's say my arms are too long). Damnit, you made me try. But your method is what I instinctively tried first too.
Actually theists without humanism would still care about others because their religion tells them to. It's the stoning to death of certain peoples and other immoral actions that are the problems.Theism is not a religion, just the belief that there is a god. It tells you nothing about moral values. Religion may tell you about moral values, but these values depend on traditions and interpretation of scripture and vary greatly over time even within a single religion. Religion can tell you to care about others and stone some people to death at the same time and find a "justification" for that easily.
Post by: Grek on December 21, 2012, 07:10:14 pm
Generally speaking, the only way to get the experience of fishing for trout next to a river is to actually go fish for trout next to a river. Likewise the experience of falling in love, of being held in someone's arms and of caring for another human being. You can only experience those things by doing them. Neither religion nor science is an effective replacement for that.
So, yeah. While atheism needs humanism to make people care about each other, so does religion to the same degree. I mean, look at Aztec sacrifice-people-on-top-of-a-pyramid religions. They certainly didn't have any humanistic feelings.
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 07:13:56 pm
No. The deal is that information from the Bible is only applicable to people and events that come from the fictional context of the Bible. Using the Bible to try and prove objective truths about the universe (for example, you saying that the universe isn't a simulation because the Bible says it isn't) doesn't work.so your going to take the bible at the parts you wantYour assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is notNot wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible. Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so. Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...
(edited for speeling eroors.)
(God is all powerful, he allows slavrey etc)
But ignore things that are good because it comes form the bible?
Post by: Max White on December 21, 2012, 07:14:33 pm
The problem was letting faith distort facts. The fact of the matter is that they didn't need to kill people, the sun would have kept going anyway! It was their faith that made them commit acts that we now see as immoral.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 21, 2012, 07:16:44 pm
The only thing we are trying to do is to show you that the Bible is a heap of contradictory randomness, and that its contents are therefore not allowed to be used to prove anything at all. The good things that are in the Bible aren't good because they're in the Bible, so you don't need the Bible to show they're good, and the fact that some things in the bible are correct does not mean that everything else is correct too.so your going to take the bible at the parts you wantYour assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is notNot wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible. Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so. Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...
(edited for speeling eroors.)
(God is all powerful, he allows slavrey etc)
But ignore things that are good because it comes form the bible?
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 07:20:56 pm
Post by: Max White on December 21, 2012, 07:27:20 pm
When people start trying to sell their faith to you, and you say 'Sorry, I'm [ANY_FAITH_HERE]' then they tend to just go away. Tell them 'Sorry, I'm an atheist' and they try even harder! Why is atheist not a valid enough option for you to fuck off and stop quoting the bible at me? I don't go in for that bullshit! I know about Christianity, I went to a fucking catholic school! Don't think that the only reason I'm not on my knees praying to god is because I have never heard of Jesus before! Yes I have 'Heard the good news!' and found it a little unbelievable, if depressing. If I were Jewish or Hindi you would tip your hat and bid me farewell, but as an atheist suddenly I must just be ignorant of the bible!
Fucking street preachers...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 21, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 21, 2012, 07:31:57 pm
IIRC the aztecs sacrificed mostly prisoners captured in ritualistic wars and people they received as tribute from other tribes. Which is another instance of religious humanism only extending to group members, while outsiders are fair game.Nah, Aztec sacrifices included a lot of people. Obviously the most famous would be the ballplayers, but priests would self-sacrifice and especially beautiful children were also used.
But I think the majority were still slaves and prisoners, yeah.
Post by: Wolfy on December 21, 2012, 07:35:28 pm
Quote
When he created the universe, he set it up knowing exactly what everyone would do, and what exactly would for its whole history (assuming that you believe he is omniscient that is). He did this in the exact same way when you type up a program and tell it to print: "Hello World" if X is 10, and you set X to 10, then it will print "Hello World", just like you knew it would.Omniscient means knowing everything that is knowable, if the future is not knowable then he cant know it, but is still omniscient
Quote
Sure, you "chose" to do whatever you are going to do, just like the program "chose" to print "Hello World".Wrong, because while he knows what we ?"pick" we make the choice, yes saturation affect it, free will dose not mean your choice cant be influenced, it just means you GET to decide a path, not that you have nothing blocking it
Yes, you are billions of times more complex then a program like that, but since god is omniscient, it doesn't matter how complex you are.
I have freedom in U.s it don't mean I can do what ever dose it?
Would\
Quote
But he did. When he was creating the universe, he looked at it, and knew that in 2012 you were going to tap dance. He could have slightly altered how he created the universe, or slightly changed any of his interventions (which assuming he was omniscient, he also knew what he was going to do even before he created the universe) and could have easily stopped you from tap dancing if he wanted to.wrong again, we don't know if that can or can not be known, and even then your not taking in to acount that he lets us pick, so yes our things our influenced, by things God lets happen, but they happen by free will and laws that where set
again free will never ever says you will never have anything block it, just that you have control of your body, you are in control, God dont say "Go tap dance" and makes you.
Quote
If he doesn't know everything all the time, then he isn't omniscient.check definition of omniscient
It doesn't matter if its impossible to know, if he doesn't know it anyways then he isn't omniscient. Similarly, if he chooses not to know everything, while he has the potential to be omniscient, then he really isn't.
Quote
2. having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledgethats one
Quote
possessed of universal or complete knowledgethis all assumes that the future is knowledge before ti happens, if it is not, then he don't have to, if time dose change around and can be altar, if we can still make all choices then he can know what we do, and if we happen to changed it still know what we do as he knows everything, we humans cant wrap our heads around it but that's the idea
How can you or I begun to know what it is?
And even then your assuming if he "desired" to change it he would, he dose not because its FREE will,. if he did change thew future like you said, so that it did not happen that would not be free will
Just because he can watch every move we take dose NOT mean it was not our choice to make
I see God as more of watching over time in this regard yes he knows what happens, but becuse he can go to the point in time where we, of our own free will made the choice
Was it affected by things? yes but we never said 100% total nothing will get in the way
just free will, your free to make up your mind based on whats going on rather then having to do what some computer or God says.
Your assuming when God made the universe he went forward in time and said "so that happen and so I'm going to make this world instead of another" (We have no proof making another one with free will would do anything)
Your assuming also that God can evenYour first few sentences in this quote are a bit hard to read, and so I might be getting the meaning wrong.
your assuming if God initiated it a diffident way, him doing that is what ends up picking what we do, I believe he mad the unverse, and WE get to pick
He may of made 50 worlds
and each one is a blank slate, nothing about picking world one form him means that it will happen
your also assuming God controls the future
Can he do these things? could he mess with it? YES, but the idea is he has giving us free will and so dose not do these things
A. "set up" the future in a diffident away, if we do have free will and he dont get in our way of it then how CAN he set it up? he lets us pick
He is all powerful and all knowing, but that means knowin all that CAN be known, and doing all that CAN be done.
Never says what CAN be known and done and not.
God doesn't control the future. He made the universe, and set everything into motion, the physical laws (that he created) control the future. But he doesn't need to control it to have chosen exactly how it would turn out when he created it.
Knowing what exactly what will happen isn't a active choice on his part. It is done as long as he is omniscient.
FAKEEDIT: Gah, beaten by telgin.
[/quote]
I've seen it time and time again you keep putting the parts that we believe and say "don't count, its only in the bible" but have no problems taking other parts in the bible and using them?
We believe God is OMNISCIENT, we cant even begun to know what that means, the term we use is he knows all that can be known, for all we know he may know more, it may be possible for him to know every action we take anywhere anytime, multilevel times throughout with diffident actions
we cant say "oh he knows this" "but God must know the furthest" "but God can change it so this happens" etc
because we don't know how God did it, if God made the universe where the way it worked was future was NOT set in stone, maybe he can see all actions we can ever take, and the one we will take etc will be "right" since the all happen
WE can explain it, just like we cant explain the big bang very well, or many other things
we cant explain a lot about either side, it dont make them wrong, it dont mean they are not valid, we just are not at the level of compassion needed
Quote
The only thing we are trying to do is to show you that the Bible is a heap of contradictory randomness, and that its contents are therefore not allowed to be used to prove anything at all.But its not, if you take all the bible says instead of allowing this part and that part only it makes sense for as far as we can understand, misquotes and ironing verses is all I've seen
If your talking as if MY God is real then read the bible FULL dont say "well cant use that" then use two others to claim heap of contradictory randomness, you will not find one that cant be explained by
A. error of man
B. your reading of it
for exsample the bible says we have free will, but you deny that, you ASSUMED free will cant exist with omniscience, with the very idea of omniscience is knowing everything even what actions we would take WITH OUR free will, that IS free will
but you deny that becuse it dont work
either take the bible as it says
A. We have free will
B. God is omniscience (what was the original world in the real rouge? was it even close to the same word? an example they did not have the term bird back then, which is why bats are labled as birds cause the closest translation was "flying things"
An example, some definitions say appeared,others say whats ONLY knowable, so whats knowable? the future? we dont know.
is our actions? in the sense he knows every single one we could pick, and maybe even some how they all get picked
WE DON'T KNOW
Just like we don't know what is on the other side of a black hole, what happens when you go fatser then the speed of light (if you can) or if we can time travel, this in no way makes science "wrong" no way makes it heap of contradictory randomnes dose it?
Post by: Graknorke on December 21, 2012, 07:40:24 pm
Quote
Definition of omniscient
adjective
knowing everything
: a third-person omniscient narrator
There is no conditional "everything that can be known." If there are unknowable things, then nothing is omniscient.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 21, 2012, 07:40:58 pm
Theists fishing for converts usually get the idea in their heads that atheists are morons who have never thought about religion before and are ripe for the picking by whatever group gets to them first. How they come to this idea eludes me, but they do.
I guess in the same way that I can't wrap my head around the concept of "faith", they can't understand how someone could lack "faith".
In the end religious people have more in common with each other than they think, like the christian right and muslim extremists. On the other hand I hate it when people think it's a good way to integrate minorities by announcing that "we all worship the same god" when actually many of us do not believe in said god.
Post by: Max White on December 21, 2012, 07:42:23 pm
~Suff
How do you know the future is unknowable?
AND you aren't allowed to say because we have free will. You justified free will by saying that the future is unknowable, so that would just make a meaningless circular argument.
Post by: Fenrir on December 21, 2012, 07:51:20 pm
If your talking as if MY God is real then read the bible FULL dont say "well cant use that" then use two others to claim heap of contradictory randomness, you will not find one that cant be explained byThe parts that insist God exists could be explained by human error too, so you have yet to demonstrate to us why you find the Bible to be such reliable evidence for God and free will.
A. error of man
B. your reading of it
Post by: Machiavelli on December 21, 2012, 08:43:10 pm
Søren Kierkegaard examines the religious extremists in his book Fear and Trembling. The reason you have religious extremists is because they are both supported by a system of belief--religion is supported by a willingness to believe, and to accept the rules and social constructs of that religion as trumping those of society. The same goes for extremism, though one might extend "society" to include normal practitioners of the religion.
Take Abraham, for example. Killing your own son is absolutely contrary to societal constructs. However, when God tells Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, Abraham goes ahead with it. Though he is stopped by God, this illustrates the concept of the "teleological suspension of the ethical" ('telos' is Greek for 'goal'); that is, the substitution of faith-based goals for those that are considered acceptable by society, with the two goals often being in direct conflict.
This is prevalent in most religions (though not always related to violence) because of the requirement of submission to omniscient beings. You can argue about the definition of 'omniscient' all you want, but God is also defined as "all-powerful and all-knowing", so it's kind of moot.
Post by: Thecard on December 21, 2012, 11:57:25 pm
I'll be honest. I'm of the opinion Jesus does not want us to thump the Bible at others. Every time I see someone being extreme right or left and rubbing it in someone's face, I imagine Jesus looking down from the sky and just shaking his head "Dick move, bro."
Going out and yelling at people to convert, that's not right. It wouldn't be right to hide my Christianity either though.
The best I can do is be good to everyone I meet and show my faith through my actions.
Not through my bullhorn.
*Not realizing assholes come in all kinds of colors. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, so on. Every philosophy is going to have at least a few bad apples.
Post by: fqllve on December 22, 2012, 12:53:53 am
I'll be honest. I'm of the opinion Jesus does not want us to thump the Bible at others.This. Other than politicized Christianity, the only real problem I have with the religion (or any really) is when people proselytize. It's rude, insensitive, pointless, and only really turns people against your position. Atheists do it to, and it irks me just as much, it's just much less frequent than with theists.
I just wish we could all let people believe what they want, unless it's actively causing harm. I think it's just that people do think [insert position here] is actively causing harm...
Post by: inteuniso on December 22, 2012, 01:04:45 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:38:20 am
but to us, your believe DOSE our belief is due to that your going to hell, us not telling you is letting you go to hell, would you rather us not care?I'll be honest. I'm of the opinion Jesus does not want us to thump the Bible at others.This. Other than politicized Christianity, the only real problem I have with the religion (or any really) is when people proselytize. It's rude, insensitive, pointless, and only really turns people against your position. Atheists do it to, and it irks me just as much, it's just much less frequent than with theists.
I just wish we could all let people believe what they want, unless it's actively causing harm. I think it's just that people do think [insert position here] is actively causing harm...
You cant say "well you dont know that" no we dont, but its what we belive, and since we belive hell awaits to us, it DOSE cause harm
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 02:40:37 am
but to us, your believe DOSE our belief is due to that your going to hell, us not telling you is letting you go to hell, would you rather us not care?Goes without saying, probably, but you are speaking for yourself here.
You cant say "well you dont know that" no we dont, but its what we belive, and since we belive hell awaits to us, it DOSE cause harm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:57:40 am
If your talking as if MY God is real then read the bible FULL dont say "well cant use that" then use two others to claim heap of contradictory randomness, you will not find one that cant be explained byThe parts that insist God exists could be explained by human error too, so you have yet to demonstrate to us why you find the Bible to be such reliable evidence for God and free will.
A. error of man
B. your reading of it
also here are some defnitions
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/omniscient
Quote
having very great or seemingly unlimited knowledge
another possibailty is he has inherent omniscience, whiche the bible suports as Jesuse, who says he dose not know the day the lord will come back, implys he "took" some knoldage away
please note it is STILL Omniscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient
(Yes i know its not a "relabalie resoruce but the soruces are, use them, safes us all far more time
Quote
There is a distinction between:The bible never says God has either or, but its impled in Christ words and how when he was a baby he did not know everything
inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.QuoteThere is no conditional "everything that can be known." If there are unknowable things, then nothing is omniscient.That is one definition, in one place, I've cited two that are just as reliable that say other wise
Even then, your still wrong because your assuming these unknowable things = knowledge, is it kndolage to know the meaning of life? not if its an abstract thing that dose not exist
How ever
Quote
Omnipotence (unlimited power) is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.
Nontheism often claims that the very concept of omniscience is inherently contradictory.
Whether omniscience, particularly regarding the choices that a human will make, is compatible with free will has been debated by theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. Generally, if humans are truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know what this choice will be.[3] Various responses have been proposed to this argument. One possible solution is that God could know every possible life one might live, but allows for free will according to laws set in place that cannot be contradicted. God would know all possible ways to live and all the outcomes, but a human being with free will would choose which specific life to actually live out, one decision at a time. God would allow for the ability to choose, and to not have full power over all in what was chosen by a human being each step of the way. God would be all-knowing in terms of infinite specific details of every possible life you could live.
So this agument has been had, and guys way smarter then us could not agree on it, who are we to claim we know?
There are two possible types, the bible dose not give which it is, but imply IMO that he can chose, as Christ did
You may say "nope that dont work" and that's fine, I don't have to prove it to you, I'm just telling you what I believe
We both could go back and forth "yeah huh" "nu huh" but the fact is, people have fought over this, guys way more quaffed then either of us, and if they cant do it, I see no way we can.
you may believe you are right, but that is not a fact, its a belief, just like mine
It's very hard to say what I belive on here just because it is, but adding my bad spelling makes it worse, so I have to rely on other soruces both for me and you guys
Quote
Goes without saying, probably, but you are speaking for yourself here.How so? have you heard them? there is a reasson you hear "fire and damnation if you dont go"
"Christ loves you" is it evrey single one? no but it is the majority, one can go through the bible and see where
OUR GOD COMANDED us to tell you about him, we are required by him to do so
HOWEVER he also says if they dont want to hear it then dust off your sandals and leave and so I agree they should read that part more
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 03:17:37 am
If this is not what you intended to say let me know.
When I said you were speaking for yourself, I meant it idiomatically. I'm saying your views do not necessarily represent mine, especially in respects to your "fire and brimstone" theology.QuoteGoes without saying, probably, but you are speaking for yourself here.How so? Have you heard them? There is a reason you hear about "fire and damnation" if you don't go.
Is "Christ loves you" every single one? No, but it is the majority, and one can go through the bible and see where our God commanded us to tell you about him. We are required by him to do so.
However, he also says if they don't want to hear it then dust off your sandals and leave and so I agree they should read that part more.
Telling others they are going to hell is a poor way to show God's love for them. Especially since we have no way of knowing how God will judge them.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:22:28 am
But its what God told us to do, and we believe we KNOW how God will as we believe God told us, we CANT know how he will abd by then its to late, all we can do is hope we are right
Telling others they are going to hell is a poor way to show God's love for them. Especially since we have no way of knowing how God will judge them.
Christ, and all his followers did it, Christ talks abotu hell FAR more then heaven warning them that if they dont they will go to hell, for us and our bleifes its imply the truth
put it this way if a man belived that a bomb was going off in your house would you want them to tell you?
thats basscily what most that do it feel like
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 03:27:08 am
Jesus told us not to judge others. Wolfie, none can judge but The Lord.Telling others they are going to hell is a poor way to show God's love for them. Especially since we have no way of knowing how God will judge them.But its what God told us to do, and we believe we know how God will as we believe God told us, we CANT know how he will and by then its to late, all we can do is hope we are right
Christ and all his followers did it, Christ talks about hell far more then heaven warning them that if they don't they will go to hell, for us and our beliefs imply the truth.
put it this way if a man believed that a bomb was going off in your house would you want them to tell you?
That's basically what most that do it feel like
And, funny enough, Jesus is God. He was able to judge others because of that.
Make sure you have the log out of your own eye before trying to get specks out of the eyes of others.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:30:24 am
"All who believe in him have entarnl life"
"the only way to heave is through God's so Jesus christ"
we do not judge, we are not saying you go to hell becuse you did bad, we are saying you are going to hell becuse christ, who is God judge and said those who dont belive will
where is judgemnt? we are not better then you, we are tyring to help you
no judging
Post by: MaximumZero on December 22, 2012, 03:30:58 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:37:45 am
The big difference between those two things, Wolfy, is that a bomb is tangible. It exists, and we know it exists because there is physical evidence for it. "Hell" has none. As an atheist, I have no reason to believe in any hells because they have no tangible, measurable, testable, repeatable proof. None. In fact, I have no reason at all to believe in any afterlife at all. Telling a non-believer that they're going to hell is a very empty threat.So can a bomb blowing up, yes bomb exists, but you have no proof its in your building
there is none of that proof its there, else where? yes, there? no and so would you or would you not want someone who belives there is a bomb to at least tell you?
You can ignore it at least, but I'd want them to tell me.
What type of dick move is it to belive christ is the only way to be safed and then say "nope not going to help others"
THAT REGARDLESS of belive causes harm, may not be physaical (In our case we belive it is)
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 03:42:00 am
But the mad bomber can show me the bomb. There is no way of showing someone heaven (double meanings aside) in a manner that would stad up to logical scrutiny.
Active attepts at conversion probably cause more harm than good IIRC. This is what gives aethists a bad name as well as the faithful.
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 03:46:13 am
But I think when God judges the hearts (in the figurative sense, not as in the organ) of men, He looks for goodness as well.
But yes, Wolfie, it is judging someone to say they are going to Hell. I show my faith through my actions, and in my love for others.
Not by thumping my bible.
And yes, there is no way to prove Heaven's existence. But I have faith in God, and I believe Heaven exists. I guess I can't really explain faith, but I can see it is there, and I suppose you can see it in me.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:51:42 am
It takes time to changed your world views, that goes for even me
We believe god proves him self every day, but many look at ti, as humans always do and either make excuses or pick something else for it
An example all of this theroys of physics? giving to science, and amny out right DENY in anyway possible God could of made those
that boy who by mod den medical terms should not be alive no idea how he lived? dumb sheer luck (another thing that cant be proven, but your still willing to belive in that)
Let me be the first to say, that yes, we Christina to sometimes take things to be form God and they are NOT
I admit that.
An example, people deny ed evolution, they would not accepted it, then they deny ed many other things, some "physical" others not (slavery being wrong)
but over time giving the chance they go to the other side
Quote
But yes, Wolfie, it is judging someone to say they are going to Hell. I show my faith through my actions, and in my love for others.How is ti judging? its not, to judge would be for us to decide where they go, we do not, Christ did when he said if you did not believe in him and God you would not be saved, we did not judge them unworthy, we did not set a standard and said they failed, God him self said that
Not by thumping my bible.
Is it judging to say I sin when I lie?
Post by: fqllve on December 22, 2012, 04:06:09 am
but to us, your believe DOSE our belief is due to that your going to hell, us not telling you is letting you go to hell, would you rather us not care?I would rather you not care what I believe, yes. I have the courtesy to not care what you believe so why can't you have the same? It's not for you to say whose beliefs are right since there is no evidence either way, just because you believe I'm going to hell doesn't mean you have to be so rude as to constantly inform me of it because you don't have proof either way.
Once you have proof, then you can start caring about my soul, but until then, remember that you don't actually know, so anything you say is both completely unprovable and unwarranted. And it isn't going to convince me anyway.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:10:25 am
QuoteI would rather you not care what I believe, yes. I have the courtesy to not care what you believe so why can't you have the same? It's not for you to say whose beliefs are right since there is no evidence either way, just because you believe I'm going to hell doesn't mean you have to be so rude as to constantly inform me of it because you don't have proof either way.Because to do so would be being a dick? it dont matter if we cant prove it, I cant prove my mom is going to get shot tommorw but if I believe its going to happen, me pesonoly better damn well do something about it.QuoteOnce you have proof, then you can start caring about my soul, but until then, remember that you don't actually know, so anything you say is both completely unprovable and unwarranted. And it isn't going to convince me anyway.So you need proof? so why have theroys then on science? there is no proof, they are not proven
So I cant warn someone I think something bad is going to happen becuse I dont have proof?
It wont convince you (famous last words of an x atheist\christain) but I have to try, i could not live with my self if I knew I could of tried to help you and did not and then you ended up in hell
what type of person dose that make me?
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 04:11:04 am
The part where you tell them they are going to Hell.QuoteBut yes, Wolfie, it is judging someone to say they are going to Hell. I show my faith through my actions, and in my love for others.How is ti judging? its not, to judge would be for us to decide where they go, we do not, Christ did when he said if you did not believe in him and God you would not be saved, we did not judge them unworthy, we did not set a standard and said they failed, God him self said that
Not by thumping my bible.
Is it judging to say I sin when I lie?
I think I know why we are disagreeing about this. I firmly believe God will judge us each individually, not in lumps of "Christian" and "Atheist."
I think it's possible that anyone with a good heart can go to Heaven. Maybe it won't happen, but I think if God wills it, it will happen.
And yeah, the Bible has many passages about Hell. But I don't think it is the ultimate source of knowledge: God is.
Once you have proof, then you can start caring about my soul, but until then, remember that you don't actually know, so anything you say is both completely unprovable and unwarranted. And it isn't going to convince me anyway.To be fair, I have no proof to show you. I just have faith in God. And I care about you, though you probably won't believe I am right.
It's funny. Sometimes, I almost just stop talking, because there isn't any tangible proof I could show y'all. But then I remember this is a religious discussion, and not a science fair.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:14:52 am
Would you be open to show me why?
The part where you tell them they are going to Hell.
I think I know why we are disagreeing about this. I firmly believe God will judge us each individually, not in lumps of "Christian" and "Atheist."
I think it's possible that anyone with a good heart can go to Heaven. Maybe it won't happen, but I think if God wills it, it will happen.
And yeah, the Bible has many passages about Hell. But I don't think it is the ultimate source of knowledge: God is.
I'd LOVE to think God did that, but I just dont see the proof in the bible
if you dont mind, what do you think of Christ saying only those who are believers go to heaven?
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 04:16:07 am
I'd LOVE to think God did that, but I just dont see the proof in the bibleAnd you probably won't. I see it in prayer.
Post by: Grek on December 22, 2012, 04:16:22 am
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:18:29 am
Each treys so hard to make the other one "lose"
like "this one answers this question" "but not this"
Why not just say maybe they both are "right"
Quote
And you probably won't. I see it in prayer.Do you think the bible is the world of God, or if Christ did or did not say that? (mistranslated, mistranslated)
or maybe yopu think the true God is more then whats in the book?
Post by: fqllve on December 22, 2012, 04:20:29 am
Because to do so would be being a dick? it dont matter if we cant prove it, I cant prove my mom is going to get shot tommorw but if I believe its going to happen, me pesonoly better damn well do something about it.No, see being a dick is when you tell me I'm going to hell for my beliefs. I like what I believe, of all the possible theories in the world not only do I think it fits what I want out of life best, but it also fits the evidence. No amount of words is going to change that.
Look at it like this. What if I believe that Christianity is directly poisonous to a person's mental state? Don't mind that there's no proof for it, there's no proof for Hell either. How would you feel if I constantly went around saying "You guys are destroying yourselves with your beliefs?" You wouldn't like it, and rightly so. There's a difference between trying to guide a person to what you think is best, to the best of your knowledge, and completely disregarding what that person wants for themselves. Let people be who they are. You aren't me, I'm not you. Let's agree to disagree.
Quote
So you need proof? so why have theroys then on science? there is no proof, they are not provenThat's not what a theory is, that's what a hypothesis is. Theories do have proof.
Quote
So I cant warn someone I think something bad is going to happen becuse I dont have proof?Turns out, I'm already well-acquainted with the beliefs of Christianity. Even moreso than some Christians. I find religion quite interesting. Consider me warned.
Quote
It wont convince you (famous last words of an x atheist\christain) but I have to try, i could not live with my self if I knew I could of tried to help you and did not and then you ended up in hellIt would make you a person who doesn't try to impose their beliefs on others and has respect for the fact that people see things differently than you.
what type of person dose that make me?
It's funny. Sometimes, I almost just stop talking, because there isn't any tangible proof I could show y'all. But then I remember this is a religious discussion, and not a science fair.Yeah, I'm talking about in general in public. Everything is fair game in a religious discussion. Except personal attacks, those are never fair game, of course.
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 04:22:57 am
I also think religion is not science. The two don't necessarily conflict with each other though.
But you can't have faith based upon reason, or the other way around.
Post by: Supercharazad on December 22, 2012, 07:04:52 am
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 07:57:35 am
I think God can speak to us, and he often does. I guess you might think I'm confused, but it's part of faith. You don't have to think the same way. (But do be polite.)From when I've talked to religious types, it seems to me like when they're talking to God, they're really talking to part of themselves, because they just about always get an answer that reaffirms their own beliefs/opinions on something. But they think about it differently because they are absolved from the responsibility of how these thoughts may reflect upon their personality; meaning that it's more representative of their own true beliefs than normal.
Not that I can prove this or anything, it's just that I've heard a lot of people all hearing things from God in prayer; and they often seem to align more with that individual person's personality than the other instances of hearing God in prayer.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 09:43:40 am
Quote
That's not what a theory is, that's what a hypothesis is. Theories do have proof.
Quote
So I cant warn someone I think something bad is going to happen becuse I dont have proof?Turns out, I'm already well-acquainted with the beliefs of Christianity. Even moreso than some Christians. I find religion quite interesting. Consider me warned.
Quote
It would make you a person who doesn't try to impose their beliefs on others and has respect for the fact that people see things differently than you.We respect that, i dont mind you believing, I'm not FORCING you to changed I'm just telling you, like science pepole like to tell evrey one as well, that we belive this, and we dont think the other way is good for you as it causes harm
it's just a warning mixed with the storys of our lord to bring the good news, becuse I DONT WANT YOU TO GO TO HELL
you can say well "you cant prove it" I refuse to belie i have to "prove something" before I atempt to save someones life
Quote
No, see being a dick is when you tell me I'm going to hell for my beliefs. I like what I believe, of all the possible theories in the world not only do I think it fits what I want out of life best, but it also fits the evidence. No amount of words is going to change that.Same for us, and you have on mutiple occassions told your side\your belifes, you how ever belive that when we die NOTHING happens
and so no harm, my side dont have that, harm dose happen
Quote
Look at it like this. What if I believe that Christianity is directly poisonous to a person's mental state? Don't mind that there's no proof for it, there's no proof for Hell either. How would you feel if I constantly went around saying "You guys are destroying yourselves with your beliefs?" You wouldn't like it, and rightly so.I dont mind that, your telling me you feel I'm in dnager, even if I'm not, I'm glad you cared enough to tell me
Quote
There's a difference between trying to guide a person to what you think is best, to the best of your knowledge, and completely disregarding what that person wants for themselves. Let people be who they are. You aren't me, I'm not you. Let's agree to disagree.Except in this case if your wrong I'm right, I did nothing, as far as I'm concern Christ should throw me in the depths of hell for not trying to help
i psychically cant live with my self if I'm the reason you did not get to heaven
i'm trying to guide you to what I think is best, to the best of my info.
What do you do when someone trys to go through a black hole? you try to stop them
when they try to sail around the world, that at the time, to the best of your info is flast, you try to talk them out of it
'
thats ALL I'm doing here, trying to help as many as I can
Post by: XXSockXX on December 22, 2012, 10:31:39 am
I think God can speak to us, and he often does. I guess you might think I'm confused, but it's part of faith. You don't have to think the same way. (But do be polite.)
God just spoke to me. He says hi and wants me to tell you that he is very concerned about you. He says the only way to save your soul is to send all your money to me ASAP. He was very clear about that. Then he said something about how you shouldn't listen to weird people on the internet, but I didn't quite get that part.
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 11:09:50 am
I refuse to belie i have to "prove something" before I atempt to save someones lifeIf by saving them you mean getting them to believe in Jesus and his associated religious practices; then it is, in fact, a necessity to provide enough evidence to make someone believe that you are correct.
It's not as if someone can choose what they believe. As I've said before, it's just something that happens based on the knowledge someone has.
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 12:39:40 pm
But no, prayer doesn't just affirm my beliefs. It's done the opposite in many cases. As I said.
And yeah, I realize the idea of speaking to God sounds crazy to you guys. I expect it to, you guys have different beliefs.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 01:19:28 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2012, 01:20:25 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 01:22:40 pm
Also, I didn't say I sit down and have tea with him. It's more that I pray and feel comforted by him. Sometimes I feel that something is right or wrong.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 01:26:03 pm
All we're saying is that in any other context, saying you hear voices in your head that aren't you is cause to question your mental health. Why should deities get an exception?
That, and how many acts of criminality have been carried out because "God told" some poor unfortunate unwell person to do it...
Quote
Mainly because I'm not expecting you to take it at face value. But I'm not going to lie about my beliefs just because I don't want you to think I'm weird.
Well, at least you seem to understand how odd it sounds to those of us who have no God.
Whilst I hold up the idea that Prayer can bring those who hold faith comfort (almost "unloading" in some way), I have no idea what you mean by the "right or wrong" statement.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 22, 2012, 01:29:51 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 01:42:19 pm
That kind of stuff. I actually do know some Christians who think differently.
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 01:50:26 pm
Yeah, that's actually offensive, questioning my mental health.Except for the part where I wasn't questioning your mental health?
I was saying that it was self-reflective thought. Like just about everyone does.
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 01:53:35 pm
Don't worry Grak, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Socks.Yeah, that's actually offensive, questioning my mental health.Except for the part where I wasn't questioning your mental health?
I was saying that it was self-reflective thought. Like just about everyone does.
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 02:02:45 pm
Oh, looks like I just got a post in an unfortunate position. Sorry.Don't worry Grak, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Socks.Yeah, that's actually offensive, questioning my mental health.Except for the part where I wasn't questioning your mental health?
I was saying that it was self-reflective thought. Like just about everyone does.
Post by: Fenrir on December 22, 2012, 02:08:36 pm
Yeah, probably should clarify: "right or wrong" as in "telling someone they are going to Hell is not something I should be doing." Alternatively, "helping out someone who can't provide for themselves is something I should be doing."You are mistaking your own conscience for messages from an ancient, eldritch creature from beyond the universe.
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 02:15:10 pm
As I've... y'know, said multiple times... prayer has actually changed my views and opinions several times.Yeah, probably should clarify: "right or wrong" as in "telling someone they are going to Hell is not something I should be doing." Alternatively, "helping out someone who can't provide for themselves is something I should be doing."You are mistaking your own conscience for messages from an ancient, eldritch creature from beyond the universe.
I used to be a grade-A asshole. I used to think "Atheists? Fuck 'em. Muslims? Fuck 'em. Homosexuals? Don't fuck 'em, that's disgusting."
But prayer actually helped me to see that isn't right to think that way. It wasn't any actual person who made me think that.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 02:16:48 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 02:19:24 pm
I'd be more comfortable thinking that my guinea pigs ran away instead of dying slowly. What's comfortable isn't always what's right.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 02:23:29 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:23:59 pm
No its not, not for me anyways, an exsample, science might one day "prove" the world will end, but its to complex (like god) for many to understand or want toI refuse to belie i have to "prove something" before I atempt to save someones lifeIf by saving them you mean getting them to believe in Jesus and his associated religious practices; then it is, in fact, a necessity to provide enough evidence to make someone believe that you are correct.
It's not as if someone can choose what they believe. As I've said before, it's just something that happens based on the knowledge someone has.
but those who truly belive that they science and advanced findings, which are so complex its quite easy to mistake, to be right
would it be wrong to try to warn pepole and tell the?
I belive pepole pick what they beli9ve, i PICKED to believe in christ, instead of saying "Oh they are forcing me to follow them" or "No proof" or "God dont exist, you have no proof, he is not real." (dispite the same thing could be said on the other side
I listened to them, evrey other one that came to me, and atheist and with the info I had I CHOSE the one I felt was best by comparing facts, what we know, and what makes sense.
FACT: Science has not disproven God
FACT: Science "assumes" a lot that faith dose, like they ask "where did God come form who made him?" but then they are fine with saying we dont need to know where the big bang came form.
Opinion: I can not, wrap my head around the idea of all of this just "happening" I dont see how laws could "just always be there" a God? its a God thats what it dose, but laws require careful exact rules to be followed universe wise, that to me says there must be SOMETHING, maybe not a God, we may be an off spring of an old race form a diffreint unverse or something
I picked this, I chose to belive, that's the problem many have, they feel like "it just has to happen"
very few pepole EVEr "just belive" they have to make an active effort, try it, and dont exspect "God give me a car" or other ways to "test" gods power to work
Just like I'm not forcing you to go with me to church I'm simply telling you what I belive WILL safe you form a fate so bad, tell me how is that "bad"
I'm not sayign your "wrong" and I'm right, do I belive that God is real? yes but I have no proof and therfor is not a fact, I'm not acting like I HAVE to turn you, I just have to let you know what I belive becuse if I dont, then your damnation will be ON ME if I turn out to be right
Tell me can you honestly blame someone for not wanting that to live with?
Quote
You are mistaking your own conscience for messages from an ancient, eldritch creature from beyond the universe.You have no proof of that, you can not with Science disprove his claim, so you, like him believe its one thing, with out any proof
Who are you to say what it is or not? you where not there, do I think it was God? I dont know, the bible dose say many will be lead astray, so maybe he is right and the rest of us are wrong
you just did the thing you said he did
Quote
But justifying anything with unverifiable assertions is neither comforting or correct.You can not verife it was him or not, therefor you have just done the same thing
Post by: Fenrir on December 22, 2012, 02:28:35 pm
So you changed your mind about some things while praying, so that implies a supernatural being changed your mind? I have gotten ideas in the shower, what shall we infer from that?As I've... y'know, said multiple times... prayer has actually changed my views and opinions several times.Yeah, probably should clarify: "right or wrong" as in "telling someone they are going to Hell is not something I should be doing." Alternatively, "helping out someone who can't provide for themselves is something I should be doing."You are mistaking your own conscience for messages from an ancient, eldritch creature from beyond the universe.
I used to be a grade-A asshole. I used to think "Atheists? Fuck 'em. Muslims? Fuck 'em. Homosexuals? Don't fuck 'em, that's disgusting."
But prayer actually helped me to see that isn't right to think that way. It wasn't any actual person who made me think that.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 22, 2012, 02:29:11 pm
Don't worry Grak, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Socks.Yeah, that's actually offensive, questioning my mental health.Except for the part where I wasn't questioning your mental health?
I was saying that it was self-reflective thought. Like just about everyone does.
We might have a language barrier problem here, I was not questioning your mental health. If you re-read my post you should notice that I was attempting humor there, directed partially at the idea of talking to god and partially at myself (pretending to be bad at frauding people). You might find that not funny, but I really don't know how you can read "questioning your mental health" into that. I didn't say "go see a doctor if you're hearing voices" or anything. My sense of humour may be questionable, but I didn't intend to be offensive.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 22, 2012, 02:31:53 pm
Post by: Hiiri on December 22, 2012, 02:33:04 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 02:33:19 pm
As for the second part of the post, the burden of proof has already been discussed many times in this thread and I see no need to go into depth on it here.
Faith is not a prerequisite for being a good human. If through faith you have become a better person, good on you. However, if it is the only reason why someone is a good human (NOTE: no impliciation that this is you or anyone else in this thread at all), then that is very shallow, and merely providing lip service to thier faith out of duty or fear. This to me seems slightly selifsh and only down to self interest (bibles in Ethiopa, anyone?), rather than through true altruistic intent (though admittedly people often only do good to make themselves feel good). Evangelising will elicit a negative response in people who really dont want an alternate way of thinking thrust upon them, no matter how innocent or positive you feel your motive is.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:39:38 pm
Quote
Wolfy, I think you have made some mistakes there about how Science operates. It sure as anything does not strive to disprove God, and unlike faith based dogma clearly accepts its own limitations, and is open to being rewritten in light of new information.Faith should also be open to chnage, our faiths have chnaged, we have chnaged with the times, we went form saying "world was made in 7 days no if ands or butts about it" we went form "God made men the way he is, no monkeys" etc
Faith knows its limitations as well, we admit we DONT know god fully, but atheist ALWAYS use the fact we cant explain everything as "proof" that God dose not exist, even in this thread I've been asked sevreal times to exsplain things, and if I dont have an awnser they act like its "cause God dont exist"
As for the second part of the post, the burden of proof has already been discussed many times in this thread and I see no need to go into depth on it here.
We always have to "Exspalin" how something happen in the bible, but atheist dont have to becuse they are "willing to admit they are wrong" 9Emplying we dont)
Quote
Faith is not a prerequisite for being a good human.no one here said it was as far as I can tell.
Quote
If through faith you have become a better person, good on you. However, if it is the only reason why someone is a good human (NOTE: no impliciation that this is you or anyone else in this thread at all), then that is very shallow, and merely providing lip service to thier faith out of duty or fear. This to me seems slightly selifsh and only down to self interest (bibles in Ethiopa, anyone?), rather than through true altruistic intent (though admittedly people often only do good to make themselves feel good). Evangelising will elicit a negative response in people who really dont want an alternate way of thinking thrust upon them, no matter how innocent or positive you feel your motive is.If they want to they are free to say "nope" and then there is no harm done, if it elicits a negative spot dont that mean they are
Quote
unlike faith based dogma clearly accepts its own limitations, and is open to being rewritten in light of new information.your not willing to hear MAYBE this guy has new info and maybe it will convince you, you refuse to hear, it dont want hear it, and when you do you get mad, not hearing our side and willing to be rewritten, so you first say "we are open" then deny to hear us, dont want to hear us, and not willing to think we may have new info...
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 02:41:52 pm
And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.
For your end of the world analogy, it doesn't really work because those who do understand would explain the facts and research to those who don't, until the only people who don't acknowledge it probably do understand, but don't want to admit it because it isn't what they want. That's different because the study would be backed up by research and evidence. Christianity does not have this, all that it has is an outdated book and some people who feel good because of it.
EDIT: If anything, it's religions that jump on anything science can't explain as proof that their particular god exists. For example, abiogenesis is something that religious types constantly use as "proof" for a creator, because they don't think it's possible (Though it's actually been shown that it is by now.).
And the reason science does not accept things based in religion is because religion is not based in facts. You can't make a scientific theory when all you have to go on is faith.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 22, 2012, 02:45:41 pm
I remember one situation when I was younger and briefly visited one of the western style protestant churches.
I remember how two men argued like that:
"God said me bla bla bla "
" But God said me directly opposite bla bla bla bla"
As a Christian I believe that there are only one source of God's words - The Bible. It has all answers to all questions. As for prayer: IMO, it's one way communication. I do believe in words "If you talk to God it's Prayer, if God talks to you it's Schizophrenia "
How can you be sure that you talked with God? Not with a part of you mind? Not with some other spirit? Not with a demon? Not the Satan himself? Don't be so proud of your praying abilities. We can't know the source of our "own" thoughts. That's a sad truth
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:49:57 pm
Quote
Okay, Wolfy, you seem to be missing something out here. In that post in particular, it's that what science assumes are just about always the simplest option that explains events around. For example, we know for a fact that people can feel like they have other people talking to them; which are actually just a part of that person's mind. This is not an unreasonable thing to assume happens during prayer, compared to assuming the whole train of things you have to assume to justify God doing it.i disagree, why did God do it? becuse he says in the bible he wants to talk to all of us
Also science is NOT al;ways about the "simplest" option, thats why science gets VERY complex, in fact if you thinok that, I'd agure you should not follow science as it has many complex rules that are NOT simple in any strech of the mind
Why is it your mind? whats simple? the only way its simple is if you elimnate god, in till you do there is always the option its God and it requires no more "complex" things, then God wants to talk to you.
And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.
Quote
For your end of the world analogy, it doesn't really work because those who do understand would explain the facts and research to those who don't, until the only people who don't acknowledge it probably do understand, but don't want to admit it because it isn't what they want.you would be wrong again, try as you might, you CAN NOT exsplain the scienc of warp speed to us, we simply would not get it right now
thats my example so while they have "proof" the others would deny it as proof
and if you "simplify it" that's like when we show you ours and you deny it as proof and say its a "cop out" or the easy answer
Quote
That's different because the study would be backed up by research and evidence. Christianity does not have this, all that it has is an outdated book and some people who feel good because of it.We belive there is evince, we believe that the world it self is proof of God and that
you claim that The fact that there are laws and science can expelling everything means there is no God
but we DONT know IF its possible to have these laws with a God or not, or if God can exist where there are laws, if it turns out that it is physacily impossible to have these laws with out God, that is proven by science.
why assumed that "rules" mean No God, where is the evdince for it?
Why believe or disbelieve it?
There are plenty of things in science we have not proven yet that many take to be ture and talk about, you belive them to be true
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 02:54:20 pm
Just do me a favour - change the tune will you? This thread is in danger of being totally ruined if you keep on bringing up the same points with the same flaws in understanding again and again, which will be challenged in the same way each time. Your faith is blinding you.
Post by: Graknorke on December 22, 2012, 02:54:26 pm
Let me specify here.QuoteOkay, Wolfy, you seem to be missing something out here. In that post in particular, it's that what science assumes are just about always the simplest option that explains events around. For example, we know for a fact that people can feel like they have other people talking to them; which are actually just a part of that person's mind. This is not an unreasonable thing to assume happens during prayer, compared to assuming the whole train of things you have to assume to justify God doing it.i disagree, why did God do it? becuse he says in the bible he wants to talk to all of us
Also science is NOT al;ways about the "simplest" option, thats why science gets VERY complex, in fact if you thinok that, I'd agure you should not follow science as it has many complex rules that are NOT simple in any strech of the mind
Why is it your mind? whats simple? the only way its simple is if you elimnate god, in till you do there is always the option its God and it requires no more "complex" things, then God wants to talk to you.
And then, with choosing belief, you really can't. You can choose to act like one or the other, but you chose to join the Christian church because that is either what you truly believe, or what you want to be true to the point where you have convinced yourself that you think it's true.
Science is all about making the least unproven/untestable assumptions. In the prayer case, there would be the single assumption that prayer is internal thoughts; coming after the fact that people can sometimes experience part of their own mind as an external voice. Saying that it is God, however, requires that you assume that it is God, and before that assume that God has a desire to talk to people, and before that assume that God loves everyone and so on and so on.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:56:57 pm
I could go around and say
Let me specify here.
Science is all about making the least unproven/untestable assumptions. In the prayer case, there would be the single assumption that prayer is internal thoughts; coming after the fact that people can sometimes experience part of their own mind as an external voice. Saying that it is God, however, requires that you assume that it is God, and before that assume that God has a desire to talk to people, and before that assume that God loves everyone and so on and so on.
A. your assuming that God would NOT talk to people
B. God don't exist
C. that God dont love evrey one
D that becuse its the "Easy way" it means its right
E. that a man cant tell when God or him self is talking
and on and on and on
your "shorten" yours to make it "smallar" so you can justfy your belive, both can be as short or as long as who ever is thinking about itwants
We can also shorten as you did with your version that it was God talking to him.
Post by: Hiiri on December 22, 2012, 02:57:27 pm
How can you be sure that you talked with God? Not with a part of you mind? Not with some other spirit? Not with a demon? Not the Satan himself? Don't be so proud of your praying abilities. We can't know the source of our "own" thoughts. That's a sad truth
Which version of the Bible? How do you know it was written by God and not Satan? How do you know Thecard is not actually speaking with God?
Following a book blindly, instead of your conscience, is a horrible way to go.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 02:59:12 pm
where is the "fact" there?
You belive its true? so what makes you diffreint form him?
Post by: XXSockXX on December 22, 2012, 02:59:45 pm
I'm not sure about insulting, but it did come off as really condescending to me.
What's more condescending, claiming to talk to a deity or poking fun at that idea? Anyway, I'm rather peaceful and didn't mean to insult anyone, but if that seems insulting already you got to be pretty thin-skinned which one should not be on the internets.
Also the idea of being able to talk to god is a pretty dangerous one. If you claim you can do that and thus know gods will, you can easily manipulate people for personal gain. The whole point of televangelism, faith healing and that kind of fraud.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 02:59:55 pm
A. your assuming that God would NOT talk to people
B. God don't exist
C. that God dont love evrey one
D that becuse its the "Easy way" it means its right
E. that a man cant tell when God or him self is
Funny thing is; those are all valid points.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:01:37 pm
Funny thing is; those are all valid points.
i'm not quite sure what you mean? do you mean me saying those are things they could add or someone beliving those are true to be right?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 03:02:29 pm
i'm not quite sure what you mean? do you mean me saying those are things they could add or someone beliving those are true to be right?
Just saying, your faith blinds you so much that the strawmen you fight against are actually valid arguements.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 22, 2012, 03:05:13 pm
I totally understand that the book is terribly corrupted. And that it is very multilevel complex manual, so you need to use your mind to decipher it. As for how I know who wrote it. I don't. I believeHow can you be sure that you talked with God? Not with a part of you mind? Not with some other spirit? Not with a demon? Not the Satan himself? Don't be so proud of your praying abilities. We can't know the source of our "own" thoughts. That's a sad truth
Which version of the Bible? How do you know it was written by God and not Satan? How do you know Thecard is not actually speaking with God?
Following a book blindly, instead of your conscience, is a horrible way to go.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:08:00 pm
How are they valid?
you cant prove them and even if you use those, I can use an equal amount of things aginst the idea that all prayer is is your own throughts
and its not a "stwar man" its showing him he is shortten his own becuse its simple, I can do that to
The fact is both sides have COUNTLESS things we need to consider and can t possible even think of right now
its also a valid point that God MAY exist, so there is no reasson to say becvuse he MAY exist means he dont, so that question works for both sides
the idea he lvoes all? again for your side to be the "Simplest" this has to be untrue, so once again this has to be exsplained as yes or no on BOTH sides
You cant go
its God talking
list evrey single thing possible
its not God: and then "ignore" the ones that ALSO go to this one
\
they are valid augments, but in till we answer them they can work for EITHER side, they are not just used for one side, you to have to disprove god, because if there is a God then there is a chance that it IS him
and then you have to disprove he loves everyone
your simplifying your side because you want it to be the simplest, I'd say its you who is bined blinded here, at least I admit, that those aguments can affect EITHER side depinding on what is the awnsert to them
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 03:09:46 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:12:10 pm
if the awnser is yes, then it HELPS our case and not yours, and therefor it depends on the awnser to these, yes or not
and guess what? I'm an x atheist and I say the same about you, unlike you i KNOW that dont make me right and dont claim to have any proof but you are
"being "x" anything dont prove nothing, unless it helps my case to? but if it dont, wont that mean YOUr the one who is blind since your counting you being an x faith as being "proof" but me being an x non beliver dont count?
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 22, 2012, 03:17:44 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 03:20:24 pm
Your "arguements" are nonsense, friend. Hence why I'm not even bothering to give you an articulated response.
It's fun when religious people can't get over their own lack of knowledge [of their own faith] and resort to unintelligible slamming on the keyboard.
Before you respond: You have to prove a single claim of yours before you ask myself or anyone else for proof, kiddo.
Edit: Sure, I sound like a prick, but this circular discussion has been going for 20+ pages and it's obnoxious.
Post by: Argembarger on December 22, 2012, 03:24:35 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:24:50 pm
Its going to take you effort no matter what I do, unless I use real simple words, and its just not possible in a topic like this. (before you say it, the ones in this post ARE the simple words)
I realize that its hard and I'm sorry for that, but I'm not speeding through or anything
but to atempt to make it more clear as best as I can in simple words as possible
God dose he exist? They claim that this is a question that needs to be answered that makes the "God path" more complicated, how ever, if the answer is yes, then its not, and it affects yours, if God exists then you HAVE to add the question "Could he be the voices in our heads at time?" if the answer is yes then again you have to add more, to put shortly, for Eyre question of if there is a God in our heads it adds a question to BOTH sides.
I should point out i DONT believe god dose this, the bible shows Gods communication other ways far more often
Dang this was hard to type.... hard to replace so many words... not sure if it gets the full effect with such small words, and the big words that where needed I cant use..
Quote
Sure, I sound like a prick, but this circular discussion has been going for 20+ pages and it's obnoxious.
so you open a thread that is ALL about that and you... dont want to read these things? its obnoxious to you? Then why open the thread? thats what this thread is ABOUT
you have no one to blame but your self then.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:31:59 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 03:33:00 pm
so you open a thread that is ALL about that and you... dont want to read these things? its obnoxious to you? Then why open the thread? thats what this thread is ABOUT
you have no one to blame but your self then.
No, it's mostly the fact that you're posting every two posts with unverified and unsourcable claims that you seem to think are fact, and lambasting it on anyone that comes across. This isn't your topic to grandstand your blind religious beliefs, kid.
So what happens when neither party can back up their claim?
Once again, prove any of your claims and I'll give you a real discussion. But you can't because you're woefully ignorant.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:39:19 pm
you will see in evrey post that i can i post I admit that i CANT prove these, that right here shows me your not even trying to read my posts you see a christian on here and go "oh boy he is forcing his beliefs"
No, it's mostly the fact that you're posting every two posts with unverified and unsourcable claims that you seem to think are fact, and lambasting it on anyone that comes across. This isn't your topic to grandstand your blind religious beliefs, kid.
I have said mutpile times this is what I belive, as for why I'm every two post, excused people keep talking to me, am I just to "stop" because you, out of all those asking things or responding to me dont like the fact I, like them am posting?
also, I'm not "blind" I've said it a billion times, I could be wrong, a frog could be God, i may have the wrong God
that by definition makes me "not blind"
As for "unverified and unsourcable claims" neither side is doing that because you CANT have those in this type of talk, it's why this topic has raged for eons and will rage in till we can.
if your expecting them then you come to the wrong thread, no of us can "verified" there is no God or because its "Simpler" that it is the truth or that what we think is "simpler" is truly simpler
so last time, grow up and read the at least ten or some times I've admited I cant prove belifes, I may be wrong about them, and they are not facts, and then come back and tell me "I'm blind"
I also like it you make claims about me not doing sources etc, with out any sources, that's the DEFINITION of irony
Quote
Once again, prove any of your claims and I'll give you a real discussion. But you can't because you're woefully ignorant.Sooo when have you EVER proved any of your claims? oh that's right... never.
Your the one who is ignorant, I said multiple times that i admit I could be wrong, you ignore that and claim I'm claiming I'm right and every one else is wrong
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on December 22, 2012, 03:41:29 pm
you will see in evrey post that i can i post I admit that i CANT prove these, that right here shows me your not even trying to read my posts you see a christian on here and go "oh boy he is forcing his beliefs"
I have said mutpile times this is what I belive, as for why I'm every two post, excused people keep talking to me, am I just to "stop" because you, out of all those asking things or responding to me dont like the fact I, like them am posting?
also, I'm not "blind" I've said it a billion times, I could be wrong, a frog could be God, i may have the wrong God
that by definition makes me "not blind"
As for "unverified and unsourcable claims" neither side is doing that because you CANT have those in this type of talk, it's why this topic has raged for eons and will rage in till we can.
if your expecting them then you come to the wrong thread, no of us can "verified" there is no God or because its "Simpler" that it is the truth or that what we think is "simpler" is truly simpler
so last time, grow up and read the at least ten or some times I've admited I cant prove belifes, I may be wrong about them, and they are not facts, and then come back and tell me "I'm blind"
I also like it you make claims about me not doing sources etc, with out any sources, that's the DEFINITION of irony
Being an awful troll really does make it easier to ignore your silly unrelated rambles, friend.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:45:44 pm
Its not against the law for me to have a topic like this, I break no rules, have fun being annoyed or just don't read choice is up to you, if you keep this up then its just you attempting to troll
the sec the other side starts proven their claims God is not real and he cant be real is the sec I start
The fact is neither side is cause neither side can, we cant prove or disprove God right now, we can only believe
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 03:51:26 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:53:29 pm
I'm sorry for it truly I am, just like how I cant say Sh or what not in real speech, but just like that there is not MUCH I can do about it, more so over night it takes time 9and I've been doing this for over two decades so I doubt another extra day, week or month will make it pop in place
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 03:56:33 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 03:59:06 pm
A. don't come up with any word close to what I have in mind
B. looking over the thing as much as I do and as much as I have to write to keep up with the pace of the thread I miss some reds.
I cant fix a spelling if its slept right but wrong word unless there is some thing i have not heard about that dose it, but spell checker on chrome dont
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 04:00:29 pm
I didn't understand any of that.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:02:48 pm
Quote
but dose is not "slept" wrong, its spell as another word, now some ARE wrong, but its often because of no matter how hard I try to spell it it either
A. don't come up with any word close to what I have in mind
B. looking over the thing as much as I do and as much as I have to write to keep up with the pace of the thread I miss some reds.
I cant fix a spelling if its slept right but wrong word unless there is some thing i have not heard about that dose it, but spell checker on chrome dont
thats my point, I'm using a spell checker right now, nothing is spelled wrong (other then dont for some odd reason...but I've been told countless time that one dont "really matter" and seen it used that way by guys who are good spellers so meh
So you did not understand any of that my spell checker on chrome shows no mistakes, what more can I do?
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 04:04:28 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:10:22 pm
an example
how dose capitalization affect anything? i mean sure it can be better but it don't change the meaning of a word or anything...
there the same...
I'll give you periods and what not but I cant figure out where to put them and when I do I'm always told it makes it worse as I put them in the wrong spot.
Here is me trying to put periods where I think they go, I'm not sure or close to sure of when to put them, commas I tend to do better on but oftten they can get in the way to and instead of making it hard to read. By not having them i end up 100% changing the meaning of my subject. By putting them in the wrong place
you know those ones where the comma is taking out and makes you look bad? mine tends to be the opposite, i say something like "dumb". and due to a comma they think I'm calling them dumb when I'm not.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2012, 04:13:44 pm
otherwiseitlookslikeatotalthisjumplelikeseet?
Oh, and it's never, ever "dose". A dose is an appropriate unit of application, usually for medication. You aren't likely to use that. It's always "does". Always.
Post by: PanH on December 22, 2012, 04:17:35 pm
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 04:19:11 pm
Oh, and it's never, ever "dose". A dose is an appropriate unit of application, usually for medication. You aren't likely to use that. It's always "does". Always.
I was trying to remember if "dose" was even a word.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 22, 2012, 04:22:58 pm
Oh, and it's never, ever "dose". A dose is an appropriate unit of application, usually for medication. You aren't likely to use that. It's always "does". Always.
I was trying to remember if "dose" was even a word.
It means "can" or "box" in german. Like the Bierdose in my hand.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 04:23:43 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on December 22, 2012, 04:26:38 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 22, 2012, 04:27:09 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:28:11 pm
Capitalization and punctuation will make us more likely to read your posts.
otherwiseitlookslikeatotalthisjumplelikeseet?
Oh, and it's never, ever "dose". A dose is an appropriate unit of application, usually for medication. You aren't likely to use that. It's always "does". Always.
I will be tempting ot do these things in this post so you can see how bad it is
There is a big diffrince between this and what you wrote one dont have captilazion or spaces but mine has spaces
Capitalization changes nothing i understand, if you dont want to read it then, but it dont make it any harder to read, the word wont changes its meaning
this is also with out those things and it can be read just fine
I'm not saying mine is perfect, as you get "longer" post commas and periods are needed and that is the problem because instead of saying
Thats dumb you cant believe that
it be that dumb you. Cant believe that etc
or I don't believe you ass (enter something here) would be
I dont belive you, ass. (thing ere that sounds so much better with out the grammar)
which I'm told is wrong, yes I know I "see it now"
but thats cause I have an example, when I'm actively writing i can not do this
again that one i CAN make out, but most I cant and they end up like that
Just like I can say my problem is that I dont sturm hard enough on the guitar, it dont mean it fixes the problem
for me, which I'm told is wrong, long story short I get MORE flak for doing it cause I put them in the wrong places which makes it worse then not having them, cause then YOU can put them some where with your mind. and may be right I, hardily am right on matters. that deal with commas or periods
but the fact remains putting an i ,or I. changes nothing other then some refusing to read a post. that dont have them... which is not making it hard to read, its them refusing to read it.
Quote
capitals do affect the meaning of what you say.i am a cat
I am a cat
i believe the world is flat due to twenty two plus eighty plus nine and that the starts move in the sky.
I believe the world is flat due to twenty two plus eighty plus nine and that the starts move in the sky.
Nothing changes there
nothing changes there
Again periods and commas? yes I have to work on them but as of now, when I post them they turn out wrong to many times, and have even got me banned for "calling someone bad word" when that was not my intent.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 04:33:26 pm
when did jobs die
That can be taken in tow different ways, as jobs is both a plural noun and a last name.
When did jobs die
When did Jobs die
Or more in one of your run-on sentences.
i can see the sky i don't see the stars right now i just see the sun the clouds are out too
Even just capitalizing and punctuating that properly would help.
I can see the sky. I don't see the stars right now. I just see the sun. The clouds are out, too.
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 04:46:21 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 22, 2012, 05:21:14 pm
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 05:30:45 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 22, 2012, 05:46:13 pm
The following is not being proposed as true or probable. Set phasers to hypothetical.
Christian theist persons:
Suppose that it were discovered that we are indeed living in a simulation. Now suppose that the creator of this simulation goes by the username YHWH, and he* fully admits to having made the Bible authors write the Bible, and Jesus was an avatar under his full control.
Would you worship him? If not, why? What would he lack?
My own answer:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
*It’s obvious God is a guy.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 05:47:57 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 05:54:43 pm
I worship him and give thanks for making me, it dont matter if Im 1's and 0's or flesh and blood the point is he made me, thats why I worship.
How EVER if it turned out he never wanted us to be like this? then maybe I'd talk to him causally but I'd still be thank ful and have respect for him.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2012, 05:56:57 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 22, 2012, 05:59:30 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 22, 2012, 06:05:11 pm
Being an awful troll really does make it easier to ignore your silly unrelated rambles, friend.
Cut this out. If you think he's a troll, ignore him or message me about him. Saying it in the thread like this only pisses people off and stirs up more drama.
@Fenrir's question
I would worship him if he wanted to be worshiped. I wouldn't be happy about it, but he's pretty much capable of holding a gun up to everyone's head.
There's a reason there's nobody who believes in God but but intentionally does not worship him out of pride or whatever. Except maybe stereotypical satanists, I guess? I don't think those actually exist, though. I'm pretty sure my high school religion teacher just made them up to prove a point.
Just wondering, if it turned out aliens had made humans...?
On the other hand, I don't think this would necessitate worship. Gratitude definitely, as long as they didn't create us as a slave race or something. I wouldn't expect any sentient creature I made to worship me. I'd hope they'd have created us as equals.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 22, 2012, 06:38:11 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 22, 2012, 11:16:04 pm
Yeah, if it turned out we were designed for something other than slavery or food or something like that, I think I'd go along the same lines as you, treating them with gratitude, but not outright worship.Yeah, that makes sense.
To add to your list of negative things, what if they designed us just to fuck with us.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 11:19:49 pm
Yeah, if it turned out we were designed for something other than slavery or food or something like that, I think I'd go along the same lines as you, treating them with gratitude, but not outright worship.Yeah, that makes sense.
To add to your list of negative things, what if they designed us just to fuck us. Perverts.
Post by: Micro102 on December 22, 2012, 11:21:14 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2012, 11:22:14 pm
Post by: Descan on December 22, 2012, 11:23:06 pm
Guys a dick.
I mean, there'd be no point. Guy would know I wouldn't mean it, and there'd be no way for me to mean it... It'd be insulting to both of us.
I'd acknowledge his existence, though. If he existed, there's no point in saying he doesn't. That's putting my head in the sand.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 11:23:35 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 11:32:49 pm
Something I always wonder about is if there is a purpose to a hypothetical God's existence. If God is truly omniscient and knows all possible outcomes. Why bother doing anything about it? Why guide humans when you gain nothing out of it, even a new experience?Maybe its not for him, your assuming god needs new experiences, or needs anything, maybe since he knows everything he lets us live and learn.
Why not be in it for us? he has nothing new to gain but we do.
and if he has inherit omniscient (it is a real definition, both of them are called omniscient, neither obs is more "true" then he could choose not to know things
Is he? i don't have clue, but if he exists then IT DONT matter, I don't need to know that to know he deserve worship
if he dont exist? or well, at least i followed what I belive is right
Post by: Starver on December 22, 2012, 11:41:02 pm
The God Of Logic who set our universe up with so many hints that it was non-divinely run probably wouldn't be too happy with any of the people who decided that there was a God, of any kind, with a hand in it. Including me, for leaping to the conclusion that there was God Of Logic without actually having any reasoning behind it.
And if we're supposed to be in a total-immersion game, then the programmer would probably prefer that the Fourth Wall remains unbroken, ne? PMing the designer to request a new feature implemented or complaining that something is (or should be) nerfed might not be what He wants...
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 22, 2012, 11:42:23 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 22, 2012, 11:46:42 pm
Quote
so many hints that it was non-divinely runwhere are the hints for it?
because we can expelling them? tell me would a "smart" race not make rules and make it where they dont have to "run the universe but let it run it self base on laws and rules?
or do you think this for another reason?
the bible says proof for God is in creation, I believe that to include the laws, you dont have to, thats fine, just know the bible dose meeting God "leaving" hints, and even says most would deny it
Post by: MaximumZero on December 22, 2012, 11:52:45 pm
Hypothetical 2: If we were, in fact, created as a genetic experiment gone horribly wrong (or right, but that seems doubtful, given our history,) and we met said aliens, I would immediately lambast them about fucking us up so badly. Seriously, the human body is full of ridiculous issues. Inadequate fur, claws and teeth. Pathetic eyes that can be molded improperly, causing vision issues in a large quantity of us. Birth defects capable of rendering a human incapable of self-care, requiring a huge quantity of resources just to keep from dying in an impromptu manner. Weak muscles and bones, compared to predators. A woefully inadequate dietary system, full of waste and infection, and ungainly amounts of parasites. My second course of action would be to consider joining the aliens' society. If they saw me fit to join them, I would weigh the benefits of doing so, and potentially find a way to raise myself to their level, and possibly beyond. If they found me unfit, I would go on a society wide facepunching spree, and then claim rulership over them.
Either way, someone needs a facepunch.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 01:09:38 am
Post by: Thecard on December 23, 2012, 01:12:15 am
No matter what happens, I will support eating the aliens to gain their power.I'm going to have to agree with you there, unless they come to bring us copious amounts of Italian food (without the intention to eat us).
Post by: Starver on December 23, 2012, 01:18:58 am
Quoteso many hints that it was non-divinely runwhere are the hints for it?
because we can expelling them? tell me would a "smart" race not make rules and make it where they dont have to "run the universe but let it run it self base on laws and rules?
or do you think this for another reason?
the bible says proof for God is in creation, I believe that to include the laws, you dont have to, thats fine, just know the bible dose meeting God "leaving" hints, and even says most would deny it
Ah, the hard (to understand?) questions, eh? (Yes, I know it's your spill-chucker making the malapropisms/etc, that's why I'm fighting to understand, and actually replying.)
The 'hints' (perhaps not the right way of putting it) are that everything we see is explainable by non-divine intervention. Or maybe that should be "divine non-intervention". YKWIM. Including that if I hold a Bible in my hand (which I can't, at the moment, but I've got one at home somewhere... NT, at least) I can analyse it and find that it's pretty much the same kind of construct as my Goedel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, or my copy of the I Robot compilation, or my Science Of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, or my set of Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy books from Kim Stanley Robinson, or the 19th Century chemistry textbook I have[1], or Orwell's Animal Farm, or Flatland (a modern reprint, I'm afraid) by Edwin Abbot Abbot, or the Perl Cookbook, or (if I still had it) Hunter S. Thompson's book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In all these cases, I can find a mundane reason for their having been printed, possibly track down some of their editors/authors/contributors (or at least make a decent effort to identify them, and some may no longer be living).
And those authors and contributors could, I'm sure, tell me how they came up with what they wrote. Some of those people would say "It's just stories", some "It's allegory", others "It's a manual for life", yet others just "It's a manual". Some may be a mix, and doubtless other descriptive words would come into it. But at some point the words for each of these materialised out of the ether (possibly from the mouths of others, but ultimately the materialisations of the oral words came from nowhere), with no more and no less reason for any of these books to have been divinely inspired than any of the others.
Similarly, when I cast my eyes upon a landscape, a spot of starlight, the form of a horse/beetle/human or a rainbow I can dig deeply and find that some fairly standard things that caused these to things to be as they were, and no reason to believe there's been any intervention (unless you believe in a continually intervening deity who does things like keeping the planets following Kepler's 'laws' for no reason).
I'm pretty much forced to conclude that we have a non-interventionist deity, if any. We're on auto-pilot. Wound up and let to run. The tapestry of lfe is governed only by the interaction of its threads, with no weaver planning its layout. This is my conclusion and YMMV. (In fact, for you, I know it does.)
So my "hints" are the total and utter lack of any hints to the contrary. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But it's certainly a rather conspicuous absence of evidence.
Quote
because we can expelling them?Because we can explain them, is that? Hope so. Basically: Yes.
Quote
tell me would a "smart" race not make rules and make it where they dont have to "run the universe but let it run it self base on laws and rules?Certainly. ToadyOne does not come round to each of our homes/places-of-work and use a debug feature to make the world we are generating (by his grace) pop up the next ambush, siege, forgotten beast, caravan, migrant wave, birth or other world happening...
Hence why I allow that a God Of Logic (or any other, whether they took that title as their own or not) might have created a Fire-And-Forget universe. The point of Creation is always an interesting philosophical point (at some point you have to address what caused the Cause, whether that be the Big Bang or "And Then There Was Light", which might actually be considered very similar by many people), but I'm speaking about everything since then. Including the creation of life itself (quite a lot further down the road, comparatively). So whether deity or Sufficiently Advanced Hyper-aliens, you seem to have the gist of my idea there, yes, if I understand you correctly. I assume you don't object to this, either.
Quote
the bible says proof for God is in creation, I believe that to include the laws, you dont have to, thats fine, just know the bible dose meeting God "leaving" hints, and even says most would deny it"The Bible says..." Indeed. But forgive me if I consider (say) the character of Joshua to have the same credence as the character called A. Square[2]. They both have some very interesting points to make about worldviews. I can apply the views of both of these characters to my life, and both have experiences that I never will (as would Biggles or Rincewind or Alice Liddell or Wendy Darling or Tom Sawyer or Dan Dare or John Rourke or Doctor John H. Watson M.D,), whether or not I believe that these experiences are possible.
So if you are saying that the Bible is the missing 'hint', then you're not adding anything. I could point you at the Quran[3] which gives hints that you don't accept, or at the Torah, or the Book of Mormon or... well, at some point you're going to say that these works (despite each and every one of them being advertised as being "The word of God") is either no longer relevant (perhaps superseded) or is not and has never been "True". And you have to appreciate that there are people out here in the real world who would put the Bible into that category. (Or any given version[4] of the Bible, what with different modern texts having taken different translational routes, but that's just more grist to the mill and doesn't matter much when you're gluten intolerant already.)
Aliens? I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
[1] Which doesn't even contain a Periodic Table in it (just a list of "known elements"), because Mendeleev's table hadn't been popularised enough yet.
[2] The "A" is for Albert, according to Ian Stewart in "Flatterland", and or his own fictional descendent of Mr Square, Victoria Line.
[3] Or however we spell that, these days. It always used to be either "Koran" or "Q'ran", I think, when I was a lot younger and learning about these things. With the apostrophe in the latter optional, but probably as a sop to not having a 'bare' letter Q.
[4] At least the Torah and Quran are at least normally read in their original (or at least longest-term and culturally universal) languages, without translation errors. And I know that the Torah at least (possibly also the Quran) has a "When you copy this text, you must copy this exactly!" instruction contained within its meme, which I find a fascinating 'reinforcement' clause.
Post by: Micro102 on December 23, 2012, 01:20:01 am
Something I always wonder about is if there is a purpose to a hypothetical God's existence. If God is truly omniscient and knows all possible outcomes. Why bother doing anything about it? Why guide humans when you gain nothing out of it, even a new experience?Maybe its not for him, your assuming god needs new experiences, or needs anything, maybe since he knows everything he lets us live and learn.
Why not be in it for us? he has nothing new to gain but we do.
and if he has inherit omniscient (it is a real definition, both of them are called omniscient, neither obs is more "true" then he could choose not to know things
Is he? i don't have clue, but if he exists then IT DONT matter, I don't need to know that to know he deserve worship
if he dont exist? or well, at least i followed what I belive is right
Yes I do assume God needs things. Liking the smell of burning blood, having a heaven in which everyone praises his name for all eternity without rest, getting angry, jealous, ect. They show a need for something one way or another. So it's either he does have needs, or all holy books ever are wrong.
Post by: Thecard on December 23, 2012, 01:23:09 am
Though, I prefer to spell it "Qur'an."
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2012, 01:27:20 am
Post by: Starver on December 23, 2012, 01:34:33 am
There are a couple dozen "accurate" romanizations of any Arabic word. No one ever managed to standardize it.<insert name of preferred deity here>damnit! If they can standardise tlhIngan Hol, why can't they do it with a local language!
Post by: MaximumZero on December 23, 2012, 01:35:28 am
-snip-A lot of these points about a "God of Logic" are well and good, but they're missing something: Occam's Razor, of course. You could say that there is some sort of non-interventionist god somewhere outside our reality, and that said god is just chillin', watching the universe go by in all its splendor...but there's literally no reason to believe that. Anything outside our universe is unable to affect us, to our knowledge. Therefore, it may as well not exist within our frame of reference. At that point, there is nothing anchoring said god to our reality, and no evidence to suggest that said god is even there. This is the point where we say, "That thing doesn't exist." Even if it does exist, the fact that it exists is of no consequence to us, as there is no interaction between the two parties, and it may as well be null and void anyway.
NINJASSSSSS...
Post by: Starver on December 23, 2012, 03:19:29 am
-snip-...but there's literally no reason to believe that.[...] and it may as well be null and void anyway.
Exactly why I think that the God Of Logic would serve damnation upon anyone who believes in him. They're being just as illogical as the followers who believe in any of the non-real gods that were conjured out of humanity's collective imagination.
The people who find themselves in the {set of all those that would be Saved} would be those who rule out even His possible existence. But I'm not here to convince anyone that this is the case, because obviously I'd be both totally incapable of rationally doing so, given the lack of proof He has left, and (if I somehow got them to convert to the espoused viewpoint) I'd be condemning any right-thinking person to an illogical Hell of His devising that they weren't previously destined for...
As such, I won't be adopting the missionary position, lest I... well...
Post by: Machiavelli on December 23, 2012, 10:12:27 am
... DOSE ... DOSE cause harmJESUS CHRIST STOP THAT
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 23, 2012, 10:51:38 am
Post by: Starver on December 23, 2012, 10:00:29 pm
When he spells words incorrectly so that they fail the spelling tests, then really odd words come out when forced to choose the 'correct' version of a badly arranged word. Recently there was "expelling" written but (I assume, from context) "explain" was what was meant.
All of this is... not easy to work with, but I wouldn't condemn Wolfy for that.
I do think that the wilful abandonment of case and punctuation is something not to be appreciated (which I don't think has yet been explained away as a result of his particular encumbrance, but if this also is I shall take back this objection), as is the bad structuring of some of the arguments (ditto, but I would consider that more likely to be just bad composition... and some would suggest myself as having a related condition in this regard).
There's also the whole adherence to circular logic within his reasoning behind some of his arguments, and inability to realise which side of Occam's Razor his combined mass of axiomic assumptions fall, but that's actually what should be being discussed (although I've a feeling we've got a stalemate here, with one side or the other imagining they've actually got their opponent's king in check, and undissuadable about that 'fact'), not the grammar. And I say that as a pedant myself.
...who is just repeating (give or take any personal misunderstandings) what has so recently been said, with apologies to those that already absorbed this situation and 'accepted' it. However, it does mean that while I'm internally frustrated about Wolfy's inability to communicate clearly, I package that away[2] and only remain frustrated with the apparent inability of our combined discussions to come to the logical agreement.
And all this is much too long a post to say "it's not his fault". (And I shall take it on trust that this is a fact.) And in the words of the appropriate baseball official, let's get back to the subject at hand and now.... "Play ball!"
[1] To be fair, it's a pretty difficult condition to spell, but that's an old and tired joke as well.
[2] With only the slightest comment, where I absolutely feel I need to, to cover where I my be mis-reinterpreting the mistakes....
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 23, 2012, 11:18:02 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 24, 2012, 07:56:29 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 24, 2012, 08:16:35 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 24, 2012, 09:26:05 am
Post by: Fenrir on December 24, 2012, 09:29:59 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 24, 2012, 10:11:21 am
Post by: Fenrir on December 24, 2012, 10:16:53 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 24, 2012, 11:26:49 am
Post by: MaximumZero on December 24, 2012, 05:34:15 pm
If they have faces, I'm going to reject that fuck-all.I'd hate them, but to be honest, they'd probably be far more advanced than us, so we'd be able to do fuck all to them.Yeah, if it turned out we were designed for something other than slavery or food or something like that, I think I'd go along the same lines as you, treating them with gratitude, but not outright worship.Yeah, that makes sense.
To add to your list of negative things, what if they designed us just to fuck with us.
Post by: Thecard on December 25, 2012, 02:07:33 am
I dunno. My maw taught me to never turn down a "fuck-all." :PIf they have faces, I'm going to reject that fuck-all.I'd hate them, but to be honest, they'd probably be far more advanced than us, so we'd be able to do fuck all to them.Yeah, if it turned out we were designed for something other than slavery or food or something like that, I think I'd go along the same lines as you, treating them with gratitude, but not outright worship.Yeah, that makes sense.
To add to your list of negative things, what if they designed us just to fuck with us.
Also, I haven't a fucking whiff of what an "irc" is or where it lives.
Post by: Wolfy on December 25, 2012, 02:44:34 am
internet something chat if IIRCC
Post by: Graknorke on December 25, 2012, 04:38:43 am
IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
Post by: Graknorke on December 25, 2012, 07:20:20 am
You are no match for me trivial knowledge!I learned that a couple of months ago.IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
I had an opportunity to use me useless knowledge, and you destroyed the opportunity!
Post by: Thecard on December 25, 2012, 02:47:46 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 25, 2012, 03:47:55 pm
When you are done reading the information there, come join us on #bay12lb at irc.darkmyst.org.
Post by: Helgoland on December 25, 2012, 06:57:10 pm
The only liquid non-metal element is bromine.Woodlice like damp conditions.You are no match for me trivial knowledge!I learned that a couple of months ago.IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
I had an opportunity to use me useless knowledge, and you destroyed the opportunity!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 25, 2012, 07:11:16 pm
The explosion of the Tsar Bomba in northern Russia rattled windows in London.The only liquid non-metal element is bromine.Woodlice like damp conditions.You are no match for me trivial knowledge!I learned that a couple of months ago.IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
I had an opportunity to use me useless knowledge, and you destroyed the opportunity!
Post by: JWNoctis on December 25, 2012, 07:12:34 pm
The only liquid non-metal element is bromine.Under standard condition! :P
Now, before the thread really turns into a trivia contest...
Post by: Helgoland on December 25, 2012, 07:17:19 pm
Bikini the garment is named after Bikini the atoll, because the creator thought it would impact the world as much as the first ever H-bomb test that had been conducted on that same atoll.The explosion of the Tsar Bomba in northern Russia rattled windows in London.The only liquid non-metal element is bromine.Woodlice like damp conditions.You are no match for me trivial knowledge!I learned that a couple of months ago.IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
I had an opportunity to use me useless knowledge, and you destroyed the opportunity!
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 25, 2012, 07:17:50 pm
A flamberge is a flame-bladed (wave-bladed) rapier.Bikini the garment is named after Bikini the atoll, because the creator thought it would impact the world as much as the first ever H-bomb test that had been conducted on that same atoll.The explosion of the Tsar Bomba in northern Russia rattled windows in London.The only liquid non-metal element is bromine.Woodlice like damp conditions.You are no match for me trivial knowledge!I learned that a couple of months ago.IRc is more or less a chat roomIRC - internet relay chat
internet something chat if IIRCC
I had an opportunity to use me useless knowledge, and you destroyed the opportunity!
Post by: Owlbread on December 25, 2012, 07:21:47 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 26, 2012, 11:00:31 am
Post by: Telgin on December 26, 2012, 01:58:29 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2012, 02:01:46 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 02:26:09 pm
Christianity doesn't have a majority, and I don't think it ever has.
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 26, 2012, 02:28:16 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2012, 02:28:38 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 02:28:56 pm
Post by: Descan on December 26, 2012, 02:38:47 pm
Uh, which one?
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 03:18:22 pm
How ever its a bid deal to say (most should know this) any survey tend to have "holes" one example is one once said "have you ever not believed in god" to say that Christina is on the down fall
even if I find one that says 90%, I need to find out what they asked and how
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/living/us.religion.less.christian_1_american-religious-identification-survey-christian-nation-evangelical?_s=PM:LIVING
In USA alone its like 60% who SAY they are christian, this is not saying those who claim they follow no "religion" but they follow Christ (the whole I'm not irreligious but i believe in god, cause they believe religion is "wrong)
and if you read it you will see the rise of "new" ones are on the rise, people who did not believe then did, this to me is a sign its not as bad as some claim, I believe its a small gap in which the older generation is dying and the newer one have not yet found it yet but will
do this text in a decade and I'd be willing to be you will find more
Post by: DarkWolfXV on December 26, 2012, 03:25:47 pm
I'm assuming he's talking about a country specifically...
Uh, which one?
Poland. A lot of christians here, but most of time the younger people here are more "pseudo-catholic" than christian.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 26, 2012, 04:43:57 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 26, 2012, 04:46:53 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 26, 2012, 04:49:36 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 04:53:15 pm
Gonna be a pedant here, but when people say "Christianity" is or isnt the most followed religion, which particular Christianity are we talking about: Catholic, Protestant, Orthadox (and so on...)??we are talking all secs, when they talk of Muslim, they mean all of them combined, same for christainty.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 26, 2012, 05:03:36 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 26, 2012, 05:08:48 pm
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 05:13:45 pm
Basically you can claim that they are diffident but to me and most doing serves most differences are very unimportant , we believe the base the same thing of Christina, which by definition is belief in Christ as the son of man\God
If you dont belive Christ is the son of God then its not the "same God" per say, as Christ is the word, the word was with the lord since the start yada yada yada
(I'm not saying I belief this, this is just what you hear the preachers\most domination say that is almost universality the same)
Christ IS God to us, the holy tryint, god the father (God) God the son (Christ) God the holy spirit (some times called holy ghost) three in one, one in three
Maybe there SHOULD be some diffidence, but at least its fair and lumps ALL secs of ALL religions together
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 07:04:18 pm
I would say it does have an effect if more people know about other religions. I get the feeling that a large number of people don't realize that Muslims and Christians have the same God.
Second, they don't believe in Jesus the same way. Most people acknowledge that a Nazarene named Jesus existed, but only Christians think him the son of God.
Third, I don't like the lumping either. The differences between Catholic and Protestant denominations are many. I guess most of you don't know how annoying it is to be lumped together with the Westboro assholes. :(
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 26, 2012, 07:08:08 pm
This is how it's divided, let's use Christianity as an example
Branches: R/C, P, and EO
Denominations (of Protestant): Baptist, Lutheran, ...
Sects: Go away, you're scaring me.
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 07:09:34 pm
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 26, 2012, 07:16:27 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 26, 2012, 07:18:10 pm
Sects: Go away, you're scaring me.What? You don’t like Christian sects?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 26, 2012, 07:18:47 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on December 26, 2012, 07:18:59 pm
Branches: R/C, P, and EOIt should be R/C, O, P and EO.
O has less schisms with R/C than EO and will probably not want to be omitted.
You just called Catholic and Protestant denominations. THEY'RE BRANCHES!He meant C and "P denominations", I think.
Post by: Fenrir on December 26, 2012, 07:30:32 pm
Quote
Blah blah religious taxonomy blah blahToo much bother. We’ll just keep lumping you together. You all worship the same god anyway.
Post by: XXSockXX on December 26, 2012, 07:42:35 pm
Well, it's sometimes interesting why they keep hating each other.QuoteBlah blah religious taxonomy blah blahToo much bother. We’ll just keep lumping you together. You all worship the same god anyway.
Also I have a bigger problem with protestants of the biblical literalist/creationist variety than say with the ones that have female bishops.
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 07:53:17 pm
The diffidence here, is in terms of the survey's, the "lumping" together, is mean to exclude how they act, etc it don't take in to acount if you think drinking is a sin, it don't care if you think only voices should be used to praise God (church of Christ anyone?)
Third, I don't like the lumping either. The differences between Catholic and Protestant denominations are many. I guess most of you don't know how annoying it is to be lumped together with the Westboro assholes. :(
and it don't care if you think Gays are evil, need help, or should be welcomed
More or less all these surveys do is put "do you believe in Christ as the son of god?' yes or no, if yes then your a christian, like them or not they ARE fellow christian
and fyi there is a joke\ complaint form each domination about the other
Quote
You just called Catholic and Protestant denominations. THEY'RE BRANCHES!While that's "right" its not counted as such, and is consider a denim nation by many, like technically Gay meant happy, it now means something else, so to do I feel at least that "bracers" is now becoming a fancy way of trying to not be "another domination" in socity eyes anyways
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 08:03:41 pm
You just called Catholic and Protestant denominations. THEY'RE BRANCHES!Oh, dude, communication error.
I said "Catholic" and "Protestant denominations."
Different Protestant "sects" are called denominations. But I didn't call Catholics a denomination.
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 26, 2012, 10:27:57 pm
They are just very, very good at making mountains out of molehills, and have killed (and continue to kill) thousands over these minor differences.
Post by: Thecard on December 26, 2012, 10:32:11 pm
And a lot of times those interpretations that cause killing are ones that advocate killing and intolerance.
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 26, 2012, 11:13:18 pm
Your church presumably preaches that you should love your neighbour etc, whereas the Westboro buggers preach that God hate fags. But both sides still believe that the Bible is the one true book and Jesus is the son of God.The Westboro people aren't any less Christian than you because they still do follow the Bible, albeit the more horrific parts.
So to an nonbeliever like me it's just about which verses are supposed to be followed and which aren't, which interpretations are correct and which aren't, what's metaphorical and what isn't. As opposed to saying "screw the whole inspired word of God business, let's just take the good stuff and leave the bad stuff behind".
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 11:18:09 pm
So to an nonbeliever like me it's just about which verses are supposed to be followed and which aren't
I'd agure that for the MOST part, this is non believes hearing
What the bible says women submit to their husbands? and claim it puts women like "property", but of course they dont read the next verse that says "men love and respect your wife's"
When it comes to verses not being followed 99.9% of the time, its the non believers taking out of context, maybe some where there IS a verse, but all I've seen is those
Post by: fqllve on December 26, 2012, 11:30:48 pm
I say it's minor since you just disagree on which bits of the Bible you ought to follow.I dunno, do Protestants and Catholics really seem all that similar to you? My impression of Protestantism is a lot of bombast and hellfire, whereas my impression of Catholicism is a lot of chants and arcane rituals. Also hats. Lotsa weird hats.
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 26, 2012, 11:35:35 pm
I'd agure that for the MOST part, this is non believes hearing
What the bible says women submit to their husbands? and claim it puts women like "property", but of course they dont read the next verse that says "men love and respect your wife's"
When it comes to verses not being followed 99.9% of the time, its the non believers taking out of context, maybe some where there IS a verse, but all I've seen is those
Who decides what's in context and what's not? The Bible has been translated so many times and is so self contradictory that it's hard to discern what the original writers really intended to mean.
Just take for example that you mentioned. Ephesians says that women should submit to their husbands and that men should love their wives. It doesn't explicitly say that husbands should respect their wives, however, but it does explicitly say that wives should respect their husbands.
You can take it to mean that there should be mutual respect between married couples, which is well and good.
Or you can take it to mean that husbands should (physically) love their wives and wives should be treated like property, and nobody can say you're wrong, it's just your interpretation.
I dunno, do Protestants and Catholics really seem all that similar to you? My impression of Protestantism is a lot of bombast and hellfire, whereas my impression of Catholicism is a lot of chants and arcane rituals. Also hats. Lotsa weird hats.
One side believes you can find your purpose in life and the meaning of everything by following the Bible. Other side believes you can do the same by following the Pope's (who has a huge hat) interpretation of the Bible. Ultimately they both follow the Bible, so I say the difference is minor.
Post by: Micro102 on December 26, 2012, 11:36:36 pm
So to an nonbeliever like me it's just about which verses are supposed to be followed and which aren't
I'd agure that for the MOST part, this is non believes hearing
What the bible says women submit to their husbands? and claim it puts women like "property", but of course they dont read the next verse that says "men love and respect your wife's"
When it comes to verses not being followed 99.9% of the time, its the non believers taking out of context, maybe some where there IS a verse, but all I've seen is those
Ahem
"Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."
Am I taking that out of context?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 26, 2012, 11:41:49 pm
I'd agure that for the MOST part, this is non believes hearingThat is totally irrelevant. It puts women below men, regardless of how they're treated. You can be nice to your slaves too, but that doesn't justify slavery.
What the bible says women submit to their husbands? and claim it puts women like "property", but of course they dont read the next verse that says "men love and respect your wife's"
Quote
When it comes to verses not being followed 99.9% of the time, its the non believers taking out of context, maybe some where there IS a verse, but all I've seen is thoseThere are literally hundreds of objectionable verses in the Bible, and all your yelling about context won't change that.
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 11:45:19 pm
the old covenant and the new covneat
Christ died so that instead of us having to die, or a sacrifice like an animal only he did, so WE dont die, you will find this in many of his preaches in the four gospels, but your not going to read the bible,. your going to read that part and go "oh they don't follow that, thew PICK WHAT THEY WANT)
HE was the sacrifice, HE was punished for that sin
if you dont read the whole bible, its taken out of context, how would you like it if I took out of ALL your post bits one or two posts, would you say that's a fair way to "judge" what your about?
Quote
1 But Jesus went to (A)the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and (B)He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law (C)Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, (D)testing Him, (E)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, (F)He straightened up, and said to them, “(G)He who is without sin among you, let him be the (H)first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 (I)Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, [a]Lord.” And Jesus said, “(J)I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on (K)sin no more.”]
Quote
"15...we know that a person is not justifieda by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" - Galatians 2:15-21
Quote
By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Romans 8:3-4
so thats what... four right there? there are more
The law existed in a time where sin was punishable with death, it still is today, but Christ was the one punished.
Quote
That is totally irrelevant. It puts women below men, regardless of how they're treated. You can be nice to your slaves too, but that doesn't justify slavery.Except you will see that it DONT put women under men, anymore then it puts a kid under parents
men are called to protect women, in a time when they where needed, you would find Christ spoke to women as equals, never made a claim they had to "be under men" they where under men in the sense of under their protection and to be respected yes.
Quote
There are literally hundreds of objectionable verses in the Bible, and all your yelling about context won't change that.And no matter how many times you claim there is, it don't make it true either now dose it?
Post by: fqllve on December 26, 2012, 11:46:59 pm
One side believes you can find your purpose in life and the meaning of everything by following the Bible. Other side believes you can do the same by following the Pope's (who has a huge hat) interpretation of the Bible. Ultimately they both follow the Bible, so I say the difference is minor.Well yeah, their doctrines are very similar, but the organizations are quite different, which is more what I was getting at. Do Protestant denominations even have an organization? I think it's more of a loose affiliation. Plus all those beautiful chants and masses and requiems were written for the Catholics. Can't say I'm nearly as enthusiastic about Gospel music.
Post by: Descan on December 26, 2012, 11:57:10 pm
Not only that, but I find the idea of (most) sins objectionable. Especially original sin.
Post by: Wolfy on December 26, 2012, 11:58:44 pm
if he is God if he says it then it is.
if you don't believe then the point is mute anyways
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 12:02:00 am
Well, we're not all fire and brimstone. But those Catholics are all about them hats. :PI say it's minor since you just disagree on which bits of the Bible you ought to follow.I dunno, do Protestants and Catholics really seem all that similar to you? My impression of Protestantism is a lot of bombast and hellfire, whereas my impression of Catholicism is a lot of chants and arcane rituals. Also hats. Lotsa weird hats.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2012, 12:04:45 am
Except you will see that it DONT put women under men, anymore then it puts a kid under parentsChildren are under their parents. They aren't lesser people, but children have to be guided so they may function as independents once they've reached adulthood. Grown women are none of these things.
Quote
men are called to protect women,Women don't need the "protection" of men. Indeed, you will find such condescending white knight attitudes are generally very annoying to modern women.
Quote
you would find Christ spoke to women as equals,[citation_needed]
Quote
never made a claim they had to "be under men" they where under men in the sense of under their protection and to be respected yes.Once again, women are not helpless cauliflowers that need the protection of big strong men.
Quote
Take your pick, then. There is, of course, no shortage of injustice. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html)QuoteThere are literally hundreds of objectionable verses in the Bible, and all your yelling about context won't change that.And no matter how many times you claim there is, it don't make it true either now dose it?
Or perhaps we should stay on topic and look at misogyny. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html) Then again, why be so specific when we can just look at all of the intolerance? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html) But nothing gets quite so flat out crazy as the violence. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)
And don't go all "Old v. New Testament" on me. If you want just the New Testament examples, you need but scroll down.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:13:14 am
In Ukraine we have 3 orthodox churches, 2 catholic ones, way to many protestant missionaries from the west and some weird sects... Should I say that I tend to avoid all churches? It's all about money and politics, not about faith
What I dislike most is an attempt to make Christianity into the religion of pacifists. Christianity is a religion of warriors, religion of knights. Pacifists should stop ignoring big chunks of the Bible and just create a different religion for themselves
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 12:14:56 am
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 27, 2012, 12:15:56 am
Post by: fqllve on December 27, 2012, 12:22:59 am
Jesus seems to mostly be pretty pacifistic, though. Except for a couple of quotes.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2012, 12:23:55 am
Christianity is a religion of warriors, religion of knights.that's a good thing?
Post by: Loud Whispers on December 27, 2012, 12:31:46 am
FOR HONOUR AND GOODNESSChristianity is a religion of warriors, religion of knights.that's a good thing?
Post by: Slayerhero90 on December 27, 2012, 12:36:38 am
AND BROWNIESFOR HONOUR AND GOODNESSChristianity is a religion of warriors, religion of knights.that's a good thing?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:44:47 am
Right. Let's just disobey the Ten Commandments, shall we?Should I stop eating meat to not kill animals? Should I stop eating at all to not kill plants? Is it a sin to kill bacterias in our body?
No! Because the Bible clearly say "You shall not murder."
Quote
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Noted the word unlawful? It's not a sin to kill lawfully. God allows that. He even bless that in many cases.
He ordered Jews to do that. He killed a lot himself.
He have a list of crimes that should be punished by death.
He allows eye for eye revenge and that includes killing in many cases
As I said, pacifists should choose some different religion
Sure. No nation can survive without warriorsChristianity is a religion of warriors, religion of knights.that's a good thing?
Post by: Wolfy on December 27, 2012, 12:47:07 am
So I’d say God did this to protect them from those who did not follow Gods world, I mean women where treated badly, both form Christians and non Christians but if Christians had followed the bible then they would not have been as badly.
the women would have been respected and watched over
Huh, is that not what we do now?
We tell women not to walk down dark alleys alone, we tell them travel in groups, we tell them many things to “protect” these women you claim don’t need it, we have all sort of things set up for them to protect them, things that give them more rights, rights that men don’t have
Seems to me we still are doing it but in different way to reflect the times, no more dose a man need to fight off the raiders attacking the girl (thank God) we now focus on other things as well but we still watch them, its why we have excite health care for them, special insurance and other breaks
Quote
[citation_needed]Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog". Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.
Quote
Take your pick, then. There is, of course, no shortage of injustice. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html)
]Or perhaps we should stay on topic and look at misogyny. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html) Then again, why be so specific when we can just look at all of the intolerance? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html) //skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html]But nothing gets quite so flat out crazy as the violence. (http://http:[/quote)
How’d I guess you were going to do that? Oh yeah only about a million others who never read the bible have used the same thing. How about reading the bible? or at least LOOKING for an example instead of seeing a guy point out all the "flaws" did you even look at the whole site? Did you read the fact he has a page that has answers to ALL of those “problems” many multiple times over.
Here is one of the links form his page.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/christian.html
you did not look did you? you just said "okay there are flaws here, no need to check them"
So now I ask you READ these, can I answer every single one? nope, but I could ask same questions about ANYTHING its easy to find "problems" with anythin
here is one example out of the bat that you guys LOVE to use (form this very site, its used so much I have it freaking benched marked
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm
once again another one set up for it, but you did not bother to look you just posted that it take it as proof, you wont read these, you will deny them, and still use your link as proof and nothing will chnage
Quote
And don't go all "Old v. New Testament" on me. If you want just the New Testament examples, you need but scroll down.
funny if you did the same you would see the "
Christian answers" link and looking around you will see ALL of them have been answered in one way or another.
Post by: Starver on December 27, 2012, 01:09:47 am
Post by: Hiiri on December 27, 2012, 01:18:09 am
Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
mur·der [mur-der]
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
Yeah, that's right! The commandment is actually against bad pronunciation! I'd like to know which dictionary God used.
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 27, 2012, 01:21:09 am
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 27, 2012, 01:23:21 am
So I’d say God did this to protect them from those who did not follow Gods world, I mean women where treated badly, both form Christians and non Christians but if Christians had followed the bible then they would not have been as badly.
Why on earth would it have been not as bad if the Christians had followed the Bible? You think the Westboro Baptist people would treat women very kindly?
I think something you need to understand is that you simply cannot base your morals on a book like the Bible, which has too many conflicting passages. Just consider the passage in Deuteronomy 17 that Micro102 mentioned earlier, as well as Jesus' teaching to love thy neighbour.
You look at those 2 passages and feel that "love thy neighbour" overrides the other one.
Other people can look at the 2 passages and feel that "love thy neighbour" does not always apply, and can justify killing people with different beliefs. And no other Christian can say they are wrong, because they are simply following the Bible.
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 27, 2012, 01:29:01 am
Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.
As any Christian worth his salt would tell you, "but God gave us free will". Thereby absolving him of all blame from any crime committed by humans.
But what I really wonder is how they reconcile this with their view that God is like a loving, caring father. A good father will give his children freedom to make their own choices. But if he were to see his child fighting with someone, would he not stop the child and scold him?
Post by: Wolfy on December 27, 2012, 03:40:35 am
Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.unless they are letting others make their own choices and letting THEM not him have their own preference
Quote
But what I really wonder is how they reconcile this with their view that God is like a loving, caring father. A good father will give his children freedom to make their own choices. But if he were to see his child fighting with someone, would he not stop the child and scold him?
Not always, there was one time when it was "okay?" for kids to fight and thought of as "being a man"
He sees his kids fighting and you claim he would scold them, but God did, look at when he sent them to Egypt, when he destyoed citywide when he flooded the earth, when he sent his prophets, he DID scold, and it did not work
He gave us punishment and we kept doing it, so now he trys a diffident aprouch, one of love and of forgiveness rather then being a stricked father he gose to one who you talk to for all your problems
The OT is pretty much him scolding for doing wrong and it got him no where
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 27, 2012, 04:55:37 am
Exactly my point. They're acting immorally by allowing others to do bad things, because they prefer that humans have "free will".Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.unless they are letting others make their own choices and letting THEM not him have their own preference
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 27, 2012, 06:00:29 am
Not always, there was one time when it was "okay?" for kids to fight and thought of as "being a man"
Not "one time" per se, several cultures have encouraged sparring among kids to get them prepared for military training. But these fights were more in the nature of sparring and testing their strength, trying to improve their abilities. Not bullying or beating the crap out of some weak kid.
I suppose I could have been more clear. Why would God sit and watch as millions lose their lives, loved ones, livelihoods and homes due to war and conflict everyday? I'm not talking about the soldiers who actually signed up for this - I mean the civilians whose lives turn to shit because of war.
He sees his kids fighting and you claim he would scold them, but God did, look at when he sent them to Egypt, when he destyoed citywide when he flooded the earth, when he sent his prophets, he DID scold, and it did not work
He gave us punishment and we kept doing it, so now he trys a diffident aprouch, one of love and of forgiveness rather then being a stricked father he gose to one who you talk to for all your problems
The OT is pretty much him scolding for doing wrong and it got him no where
His idea of scolding is quite retarded then. Usually a scolding involves telling the child what he's done wrong and why it's wrong, and making the child apologise. Scolding does not involve killing everyone and destroying everything. Being omnipotent, God has no excuse for not being able to change people's natures such that they don't want to kill or harm others.
Plus the diffident approach doesn't work at all. Thousands of Christians have and still continue to kill and harm others.
But leaving aside the people who suffer due to war and conflict, what about all the innocent people in poverty-stricken places around the world, dying of starvation and disease? Does God not care about their plight? I can't imagine how a theistic god, if it existed, could even remotely be considered to be loving or caring towards humanity.
Post by: Graknorke on December 27, 2012, 07:50:49 am
Do we really need to do this whole burden of proof thing again?Quote[citation_needed]Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog". Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.
Really?
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 08:22:15 am
Do we really need to do this whole burden of proof thing again?Quote[citation_needed]Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog". Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.
Really?
That plea will fall on deaf ears most probably. Wolfy has had this point made to them several times recently and chosen to ignore it, or used circular reasoning.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 09:21:12 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 09:51:24 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 09:54:40 am
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 09:57:11 am
Further, he has already impinged upon our free will. I want to fly under my own power as easily as I run. Can I do that? No. Strange how it was considered important for me to have the choice to murder someone, but he did not give me the choice to fly.
This is, of course, omitting all the torture and murder that God commits without people, unless someone wants to argue that cancer and tsunamis have free will.
Post by: Lysabild on December 27, 2012, 09:59:01 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 10:00:54 am
Cos, you know, the Taliban love schools dont they... [/sarcasm]
Post by: Spinning Fly on December 27, 2012, 10:18:43 am
Even if a nonsensical concept like free will existed, it would not absolve God from responsibility. To excuse God’s neglect by saying that God wanted us to make our own choices is to tacitly imply that crimes are committed between consenting adults. If a woman is attacked, or, for that matter, anyone is attacked, she certainly isn’t being given a choice. No one chooses to be raped or murdered. If God is willing to permit a malevolent power to impose his will over another, why would it be worse for God to intercede? Either way, someone is having a particular circumstance forced upon them, so why not make it a good one?
Further, he has already impinged upon our free will. I want to fly under my own power as easily as I run. Can I do that? No. Strange how it was considered important for me to have the choice to murder someone, but he did not give me the choice to fly.
This is, of course, omitting all the torture and murder that God commits without people, unless someone wants to argue that cancer and tsunamis have free will.
Yeah, that's the double standard that's central to Christian dogma, which even the most rational of their believers has to ignore if they believe that God is caring.
But that's going away from religion towards sexism.
Sexism that's due to their interpretation of the Qur'an.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 10:50:23 am
Quote
To excuse God’s neglect by saying that God wanted us to make our own choices is to tacitly imply that crimes are committed between consenting adults. If a woman is attacked, or, for that matter, anyone is attacked, she certainly isn’t being given a choice. No one chooses to be raped or murdered.It's not quite true.
1)No one chooses to be raped or murdered willingly, but no one said about mistakes. If you sin, then you suffer consequences. That may get you raped and murdered... What is even worse you can and will pay for sins of the others
2) You somehow ignore a right for free will of murderer and rapist
3) Sufferings and death is not the most important God, he cares about immortal soul
Quote
Further, he has already impinged upon our free will. I want to fly under my own power as easily as I run.Free will = right to make own decisions (and face consequences). You are talking about ability to do whatever you want and don't suffer any consequents.
You can use your free will to jump from a roof, will you blame God for your broken legs?
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 11:19:20 am
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 11:21:24 am
Please tell me you did not.
Post by: Dutchling on December 27, 2012, 11:26:04 am
Wait... Did... Did you just say that rape victims are being raped because they're bad people?He says it's because someone was bad. Not necessarily the one being raped.
Please tell me you did not.
Basically, every time you steal something from the cookie jar, you're actually raping that cute girl from Biology class.
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 11:29:20 am
Basically, every time you steal something from the cookie jar, you're actually raping that cute girl from Biology class.So... I guess that's why she's been glaring at me. Too many cookies...
Seriously though, UR, I'd really appreciate it if you could try to avoid the topic of rape if necessary. Just say "killed" instead or something.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 11:34:13 am
So you're saying that God doesn't care who gets punished, as long as somebody gets punished?QuoteTo excuse God’s neglect by saying that God wanted us to make our own choices is to tacitly imply that crimes are committed between consenting adults. If a woman is attacked, or, for that matter, anyone is attacked, she certainly isn’t being given a choice. No one chooses to be raped or murdered.It's not quite true.
1)No one chooses to be raped or murdered willingly, but no one said about mistakes. If you sin, then you suffer consequences. That may get you raped and murdered... What is even worse you can and will pay for sins of the others
Quote
2) You somehow ignore a right for free will of murderer and rapistNow we have two options.
Option 1: The rape is a punishment for somebody's crime (not necessarily the victim's). Then the rapist was somehow forced to do this by higher powers and therefore doesn't have free will.
Option 2: The rape happens because of the rapist's free will. Then it cannot be a punishment, since the rapist could have decided otherwise.
You hold two mutually exclusive worldviews at once. Doesn't that make you wonder?
Option 3: The rape is a punishment for another person's sin, specifically the rapist's sin of raping the victim. Then God has nothing to do with that.
Quote
3) Sufferings and death is not the most important God, he cares about immortal soulWhat exactly does he care about? Which properties does he like in an immortal soul? How does he strive to make immortal souls have these properties?
EDIT: If you're Thecard, just read "kill" instead of "rape".
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 11:37:31 am
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 11:39:22 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 11:47:10 am
Wait... Did... Did you just say that rape victims are being raped because they're bad people?1) If you are a Christian you should admit that there are no good or bad people. Sins are bad, not sinners.
Please tell me you did not.
2) I don't know why, but the world is clearly made in a way that people have to pay for the sins of the others. For sins of parents, sins of friend, sins of the nation, sins of the whole humanity.
It's just a law. Like gravity. Every body influence gravitational field of the whole universe. Every sin influence the whole humanity.
3) As awful it sound, in most cases, being raped is a consequence of woman action(s). Her own decisions led to that in some way or another. It's sad, but it is a fact. No I don't say that she have done something to deserve that. I only say that she got a result of her own mistakes.
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 11:49:24 am
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 11:50:48 am
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 11:51:59 am
3) As awful it sound, in most cases, being raped is a consequence of woman action(s). Her own decisions led to that in some way or another. It's sad, but it is a fact. No I don't say that she have done something to deserve that. I only say that she got a result of her own mistakes.Oh. Okay. So you did say it would be her fault.
Y'know, in America we have a saying about rape: the victim is never at fault.
It is a result of no one's actions but actions of the rapist.
Post by: G-Flex on December 27, 2012, 11:54:44 am
I'm not sure what this guy expects women to do; constantly live their lives in fear, never doing anything even as risky as walking down the street or wearing flattering clothing, because if they get sexually assaulted by some stranger it's their fault? There are other problems with his statement, but I'm not even going to bother continuing.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 11:55:37 am
"The immortal soul" appears to suffer when the bag of meat it is contained within goes through unpleasant events. Any God that allows suffering as some kind of test is cruel and not one I wish to belive in.
Well, you do need some kind of unpleasant events to mentally develop. You can't learn without some kind of pleasure feedback. But these unpleasant events can be also triggered while maintaining fairness, and a caring and kind God could very easily ensure that life is fair. Since life isn't fair, God isn't caring and kind.
McFry, it isn't necessarily the word. I just find he would have been able to make a much less offensive argument if he used almost any other crime instead. Mainly because from what I've seen of UR, he doesn't see rape as a big deal. I could be wrong, but... It gets to the point where I am a little creeped out by him.Thinking of rape as "not a big deal" is quite creepy, I must agree, yet I don't see why using rape as an example would make the argument offensive (or maybe that's just me, stripping sentences down to the statements and ignoring any other aspects).
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 11:56:30 am
2) I don't know why, but the world is clearly made in a way that people have to pay for the sins of the others. For sins of parents, sins of friend, sins of the nation, sins of the whole humanity.Hint: God doesn't exist, that's why.
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 11:59:52 am
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 12:01:20 pm
The christian god not existing is a better explanation for UR's observations than Him existing.Look, I'm an atheist myself, but I have to ask: Do you have evidence for this?2) I don't know why, but the world is clearly made in a way that people have to pay for the sins of the others. For sins of parents, sins of friend, sins of the nation, sins of the whole humanity.Hint: God doesn't exist, that's why.
Post by: G-Flex on December 27, 2012, 12:02:33 pm
Look, I'm an atheist myself, but I have to ask: Do you have evidence for this?2) I don't know why, but the world is clearly made in a way that people have to pay for the sins of the others. For sins of parents, sins of friend, sins of the nation, sins of the whole humanity.Hint: God doesn't exist, that's why.
The burden of proof is on the person saying he does, not the person saying he doesn't.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Post by: Hiiri on December 27, 2012, 12:03:31 pm
Hint: God doesn't exist, that's why.Look, I'm an atheist myself, but I have to ask: Do you have evidence for this?
It's the default position. I'm sure MagmaMcFry would also add "... but I could be wrong" if asked. I'm sure you wouldn't ask the same question if someone said: "Santa doesn't exist"
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 12:03:56 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 12:06:41 pm
Edit: As an aside, how would faithful individuals react to aliens, sentient or otherwise?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2012, 12:08:31 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on December 27, 2012, 12:08:53 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 12:09:07 pm
It's the unfalsifiable problem. You can't prove or disprove his existence.Well, the Christian God is described as interfering, so if the Christian God existed, the future would be different than if he didn't exist, right?
Therefore the existence of the Christian God is testable.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:11:09 pm
Quote
Y'know, in America we have a saying about rape: the victim is never at fault.If you mean that you can't blame someone for being raped that's true. You need to live in Saudi Arabia for that
But that women couldn't choose another path to avoid rape is bullshit.
She could choose associates better
She could learn self defense
She could carry a gun
And so on...
Protecting own body and honor is a duty
We are responsible for whatever that happens with us
Pacifistic, fluffy, babysitting, "make all people happy" God doesn't exist. It's obvious from a simple observation. But Christian god is anything but that. Ask inquisition, ask crusadersThe christian god not existing is a better explanation for UR's observations than Him existing.Look, I'm an atheist myself, but I have to ask: Do you have evidence for this?2) I don't know why, but the world is clearly made in a way that people have to pay for the sins of the others. For sins of parents, sins of friend, sins of the nation, sins of the whole humanity.Hint: God doesn't exist, that's why.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 12:12:46 pm
Ukranian Ranger, do you worship the bastard? After all, not doing so doesn't seem to have any additional ill effects.
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 12:16:08 pm
But that women couldn't choose another path to avoid rape is bullshit.The point is that she wouldn't know which path to take.
Post by: scriver on December 27, 2012, 12:21:53 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:24:58 pm
Quote
Ukranian Ranger, do you worship the bastard? After all, not doing so doesn't seem to have any additional ill effects.Bastard? Strange word used
I like the world created by him. I believe in him. I am fine with his methods. I am not going to cry that sufferings exist in the world, because
1) That's our own fault
2) World is still a great place to live
3) It's only the first steps in eternal life
But that women couldn't choose another path to avoid rape is bullshit.The point is that she wouldn't know which path to take.
So what? Still it's a result of her actions
Do you admit that some actions (or lack of) increase chances to get raped?
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 12:30:56 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 12:34:54 pm
sufferings exist in the world, becauseYes, it's totally our fault that earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and meteors and volcanoes and diseases and death and idiots happen. I agree with you.
1) That's our own fault
Let's play a game. You have a gun, and a random stranger has a coin. If he flips heads, you shoot him in the face. Would you be okay with that game?
Purely hypothetical, by the way. Don't get any ideas.
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 12:39:09 pm
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 12:44:14 pm
It's true, religions do better with a figurehead. So does everything else.
But second, Christians don't really forget that. We know things do better with a leader.
And third, they won't entirely burn out. Some branches/denominations will, sure. Like Catholic, for instance. But some churches are unstructured. Y'know, the churches that don't have a hierarchy of believers.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:49:12 pm
Quote
Ranger, when did you come too this set of beliefs?As long as I remember mysefl
Quote
I'd also be interested in hearing the worst experience you've had.Broken spine.
Quote
Yes, it's totally our fault that earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and meteors and volcanoes and diseases and deathWell, I don't think that death is something bad. Just a part of a life.
Quote
Let's play a game. You have a gun, and a random stranger has a coin. If he flips heads, you shoot him in the face. Would you be okay with that game?
No. And how is this related?
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 12:50:34 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 12:55:01 pm
Why did you deserve that?I don't know why God was so kind to me :D
Seriously if I hadn't got that trauma I would be a very different person. Basically I wouldn't exist, some other person would. I am grateful for that
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 12:56:32 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 12:57:30 pm
UR, I do not have the choice to fly by my own power, but I have the choice to murder someone. You argue that I have the choice to try flying, and it isn’t God’s fault if I break my legs. After all, it’s just a feature of the universe that he made that gravity pulls you down and breaks your legs, and, if you’re stupid enough to ignore it, it will hurt you.
Now consider what God could have done. He could have made a universal law that people who try to torture children are immediately teleported to some kind of cosmic prison. It isn’t God doing it any more than it’s God that pulls me down to the ground and breaks my legs when I try to fly, it’s just, like gravity, a feature of the universe. The offender is released after a month of incarceration, again, not by God, but it’s just the way the world works. A conversation we would have had in that universe would have gone “God already violates our free will by sending us to cosmic prison!” And you might have replied, “God isn’t going to protect you from consequences. If you torture a child, don’t blame God when you are teleported to prison.” By your reasoning, that would be a universe in which children aren’t tortured and we keep our free will, and if God is a just and moral god he would have chosen a universe without children being tortured, so why aren’t we living in that one?
This is, again, completely ignoring that free will is a nonsensical idea, and we are also ignoring all the suffering that is not a consequence of human beings, and we are ignoring all the suffering that happens to creatures that are not human, and all the suffering that happened before human beings even existed, but we can go over those points later.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2012, 01:03:50 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 01:06:45 pm
Why do you get better treatment then others?You want me to understand actions of the being that is much more complex and advanced than me? It's same as asking bacteria to understand some action of a human
What I am very not sure about is that it was a result of God's action. It's quite possible that it was a result of some unknown laws created by God, including results of human actions, decisions, thoughts and prayers
Post by: cerapa on December 27, 2012, 01:17:51 pm
The whole thing is moot then, isnt it?Why do you get better treatment then others?You want me to understand actions of the being that is much more complex and advanced than me? It's same as asking bacteria to understand some action of a human
For practical purposes, a random system and an unknown system(especially one that is that unknowable) are identical.
I assume you pray, or believe that prayer has power? May I ask what the point it, when it is unfalsifiable if it even has an effect, or if it wont have the opposite effect to what the praying person intended?
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 27, 2012, 01:19:59 pm
Why do you get better treatment then others?You want me to understand actions of the being that is much more complex and advanced than me? It's same as asking bacteria to understand some action of a human
What I am very not sure about is that it was a result of God's action. It's quite possible that it was a result of some unknown laws created by God, including results of human actions, decisions, thoughts and prayers
So, if we can't comprehend it, why is accepting it the default?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 01:27:10 pm
Let's slightly modify this game for the sake of my argument.QuoteLet's play a game. You have a gun, and a random stranger has a coin. If he flips heads, you shoot him in the face. Would you be okay with that game?
No. And how is this related?
The game now works like this: You hold your hands behind your back, with a gun in your right hand. The stranger picks one hand, and if it is the hand with the gun, you shoot him in the face.
Let's say that everything you said in this thread is true, and you are hypothetically playing this game.
Now assume the stranger picks the right hand. Therefore you shoot him in the face. Earlier you said that everything that happens to somebody is all his own fault. Since being shot happened to the stranger, it is the stranger's own fault that he was shot in the face (after all, he could have picked the left hand instead). So it wasn't your fault that you shot him. But since shooting a stranger happened to you, it was your fault that you shot him. Blatant contradiction.
Now the stranger is (or was) suffering. Since all suffering is punishment, this one is too. Since you helped God deal out some punishment, what you did was good. But killing people is a sin, therefore what you did was bad. Another contradiction.
Now this suffering is punishment for a sin that the stranger or one of their relatives did, let's say (for argument's sake) that his brother murdered someone. If the stranger had picked your left hand, he would not get punished. Since the shooting-in-his-face is punishment for the murder, the murder would not have happened (since you don't need to be punished for something that didn't happen). This means that it is impossible for the stranger to pick your left hand, which means he has no free will. One more contradiction.
Well, you got your better treatment from the humans treating you, not from God. Since the humans have free will, they could have chosen not to treat you better than others, so it is entirely the humans' fault for treating you better. God has nothing to do with that.Why do you get better treatment then others?You want me to understand actions of the being that is much more complex and advanced than me? It's same as asking bacteria to understand some action of a human
What I am very not sure about is that it was a result of God's action. It's quite possible that it was a result of some unknown laws created by God, including results of human actions, decisions, thoughts and prayers
Also, if God is so much more complex and advanced than you, then why do you think he would care about you? It's not like you would punish individual bacteria for killing other bacteria, right?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 01:31:55 pm
The whole thing is moot then, isnt it?Well, what you say is the same as not using physics because humanity don't know everything. And will not know.
For practical purposes, a random system and an unknown system(especially one that is that unknowable) are identical.
I assume you pray, or believe that prayer has power? May I ask what the point it, when it is unfalsifiable if it even has an effect, or if it wont have the opposite effect to what the praying person intended?
I have a common sense, experience and intelligence to make decisions. I know that I may make something wrong. I know very well that my actions may lead to the opposite result. It doesn't mean that I should stop doing anything.
Post by: cerapa on December 27, 2012, 01:41:56 pm
Well, what you say is the same as not using physics because humanity don't know everything. And will not know.Common sense, experience and knowledge are explicitly for the purpose of determining the results of your actions(and things we have in regards to physics). If you have any of them regarding a god, then you can predict its actions(even if to a small extent), and the human<->bacteria analogy does not hold true.
I have a common sense, experience and intelligence to make decisions. I know that I may make something wrong. I know very well that my actions may lead to the opposite result. It doesn't mean that I should stop doing anything.
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 02:00:29 pm
actually, UR believes god is an asshole and he's comfortable with suffering and all that jazz.Well, he said that pain and suffering were not the most important thing to God, but I thought that he still considered God a good fellow, as he is offering all manner of reasons to excuse God from responsibility for that suffering. It’s anyone’s guess how one could be the ultimate power but still evade ultimate responsibility.
My analogy goes unanswered. If it was flawed or unclear, I would appreciate it if you would tell me, UR.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:08:15 pm
Well, what you say is the same as not using physics because humanity don't know everything. And will not know.Common sense, experience and knowledge are explicitly for the purpose of determining the results of your actions(and things we have in regards to physics). If you have any of them regarding a god, then you can predict its actions(even if to a small extent), and the human<->bacteria analogy does not hold true.
I have a common sense, experience and intelligence to make decisions. I know that I may make something wrong. I know very well that my actions may lead to the opposite result. It doesn't mean that I should stop doing anything.
Ok, human>bacteria analogy is a little too extreme. I agree. Switch it to an adult >one year old child
actually, UR believes god is an asshole and he's comfortable with suffering and all that jazz.Well, he said that pain and suffering were not the most important thing to God, but I thought that he still considered God a good fellow, as he is offering all manner of reasons to excuse God from responsibility for that suffering. It’s anyone’s guess how one could be the ultimate power but still evade ultimate responsibility.
My analogy goes unanswered. If it was flawed or unclear, I would appreciate it if you would tell me, UR.
Yep, exactly. In my set of beliefs God does care about our suffering. But it's still necessary for his plans
And what analogy? I missed that. And lazy to search
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 02:09:25 pm
Yep, exactly. In my set of beliefs God does care about our suffering. But it's still necessary for his plansWhat are his plans?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:10:44 pm
I don't know :PYep, exactly. In my set of beliefs God does care about our suffering. But it's still necessary for his plansWhat are his plans?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 02:12:57 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:17:57 pm
Because any being have plans. Because I believe that everything happens because God allows that. If it would oppose his plans he would stop that
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 02:20:14 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:24:01 pm
Post by: Descan on December 27, 2012, 02:29:24 pm
I never understood that. Why did he make us so stupid? I mean, if I were an immortal omnipotent deity, why the hell would I create a species too fucking dumb to understand me? It'd be boring! So fucking boring! Especially since that very non-understanding leads to a great many of humans to reject him as nonsensical. And apparently that rejection leads to Hell/punishment. His fault, then.Why do you get better treatment then others?You want me to understand actions of the being that is much more complex and advanced than me? It's same as asking bacteria to understand some action of a human
Again, I don't understand that. Why make a changing universe if you're going to punish people in the most unchanging way possible? And if you yourself are unchanging! And why punish people for not being irrational if he made us to be capable of rationality?
I'm not saying he has to give us all the knowledge. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice and... you know, sane... to give us the capability to understand his high and mighty plan. So that we would actually want to go along with it?
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 02:34:08 pm
Because I like the world, because I believe that he is a loving father want to make it even better and I am willing to help him in that taskYou can't help him if you don't know his plans.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:36:32 pm
Your problem that you want to apply your logic to the God's. You try to decide for him what is boring, what is right. What is wrong. It doesn't work that way. He is not you.
At least you admit that you don't understand
I can by attempting to understand his plans and following that. It's enoughBecause I like the world, because I believe that he is a loving father want to make it even better and I am willing to help him in that taskYou can't help him if you don't know his plans.
Post by: Thecard on December 27, 2012, 02:38:40 pm
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 02:39:12 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 02:42:30 pm
And what analogy? I missed that. And lazy to searchThis one. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113483.msg3905726#msg3905726)
Your problem that you want to apply your logic to the God's.No, we are applying our logic to what you are telling us about God.
You try to decide for him what is boring, what is right. What is wrong. It doesn't work that way. He is not you.It’s incongruous to make assertions about God an his priorities then turn around and tell us we can’t do the same thing.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on December 27, 2012, 02:55:04 pm
And what analogy? I missed that. And lazy to searchThis one. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113483.msg3905726#msg3905726)
I answered that. You mix free will, superpower and right to do anything without consequences
Post by: MagmaMcFry on December 27, 2012, 03:38:21 pm
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 03:39:28 pm
I answered that. You mix free will, superpower and right to do anything without consequencesNo, this is not about consequences. I have not the choice to fly under my own power “with consequences”. I have not the choice to fly under my own power at all. I have been restricted. By denying me that choice, he has impinged upon my free will.
He could have restricted the hypothetical rapist too, as he has denied me the power to fly, and that would be the right thing to do, and it is what we would expect of any human being, but that would have been to “ignore a right for free will of murderer and rapist”, as you put it. If being precluded from hurting people is a violation of free will, then so is being precluded from flying under my own power.
Post by: G-Flex on December 27, 2012, 04:05:53 pm
QuoteY'know, in America we have a saying about rape: the victim is never at fault.If you mean that you can't blame someone for being raped that's true. You need to live in Saudi Arabia for that
But that women couldn't choose another path to avoid rape is bullshit.
She could choose associates better
She could learn self defense
She could carry a gun
And so on...
Protecting own body and honor is a duty
We are responsible for whatever that happens with us
So you essentially blame the victim of any sort of crime for being a victim of that crime? Do you expect people to predict the future, or something? You do realize that it's not in any way plausible to expect people to predict most of these things, or to avoid all significant risk, right?
The idea that people have some culpability when it comes to protecting themselves is one thing, but expecting people to live their lives in an extremely paranoid fashion that minimizes all risks no matter what, or to be downright precognitive, and to have the ability to prevent any and all crimes attempted against them, is ludicrous. Also, this might surprise you, but very many rapes are not committed by strangers in dark alleys.
Post by: kaijyuu on December 27, 2012, 04:23:14 pm
Rape, of course, is a billion times larger in magnitude than that.
Anyway, g-flex is right: IIRC most rapes are performed by people who are at least acquaintances of the victim. Same goes for molestation, kidnapping, etc. Rapists/murderers who strike at random are rare, and you've got about as much chance of getting targeted by one of those as winning the lottery, so advice along the lines of "carry a gun" is ludicrously paranoid.
Long story short: you want to give helpful advice to reduce risks? Great. But if someone doesn't follow that advice and gets hurt, you sure as hell better still give them the sympathy they deserve.
Post by: Fenrir on December 27, 2012, 04:31:22 pm
QuoteTo excuse God’s neglect by saying that God wanted us to make our own choices is to tacitly imply that crimes are committed between consenting adults. If a woman is attacked, or, for that matter, anyone is attacked, she certainly isn’t being given a choice. No one chooses to be raped or murdered.It's not quite true.
1)No one chooses to be raped or murdered willingly, but no one said about mistakes. If you sin, then you suffer consequences. That may get you raped and murdered... What is even worse you can and will pay for sins of the others
Rape is a “consequence”. It’s your fault. Notice that this is being offered as a reason that God would not intervene.
Post by: Hiiri on December 27, 2012, 04:42:29 pm
Edit: :P
Post by: Eagle_eye on December 27, 2012, 04:47:39 pm
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 27, 2012, 04:48:42 pm
Post by: Hiiri on December 27, 2012, 04:49:19 pm
I think, and sincerely hope Hiri was being sarcastic.
What was the sarcasm font again..? :P