Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dreiche2

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 38
136
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 15, 2010, 09:25:06 am »
Quote from: kinseti on March 15, 2010, 01:10:21 am
I'm just saying, not only are you arguing about semantics, you're doing it badly.

Seconded.

Quote from: Neruz on March 15, 2010, 01:11:11 am
I'm trying to drag the discussion away from the people who seem to think that Atheism and Science are interchangeable.

But you are not doing a good job. I 100% agree with you on the issue, i.e. that science is not a religion, but you constantly argue about semantics in a detail that is irrelevant to the bigger issue, and, sorry, you're simply wrong in many cases as well.

The full dictionary definition given for religion is totally sufficient to reject the notion that science per se is a religion.

As for Buddhism, like I said in the other thread it's my favourite religion because of this:


Quote from: The Buddha, supposedly
Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.

Moreover, some aspects of Buddhism are pretty close to my own viewpoint. What exactly Buddhism entails seems not clear, because afaik the guy said some things and then 200 years later they decided to actually write down what he said, but even then they couldn't agree about what exactly that was. Which lead to many different schools of Buddhism. This diversity is of course also inherent to Buddhism because of the aforementioned quote.

As for gods in Buddhism, yes as far as I know many form of Buddhism don't require gods. It's just that people believed in supernatural beings back then and now anyway as part of their world view, but Buddhism itself doesn't rely on gods existing afaik.

Personally, if I take (certain interpretations of) the lack of self in Buddhism as reality, but karma and rebirth as metaphors, and acknowledge the important role of compassion as least arbitrary purpose in life, I pretty much get what is my (life) philosophy and viewpoint on the nature of the self.

So in a sense, if I ever were to found a religion based on, or at least constrained by, science and philosophy (!), it would look pretty close to Buddhism.
 
Quote from: Andir on March 15, 2010, 09:09:17 am
But that's not the point.  The task was to find a religion who don't believe in a god.  My point is that you don't need to question meaning, purpose, etc. at all.  So you can have an atheist that believes our purpose here is to entertain an alien race as pets... there's not much Science involved in that. (more science fiction :P)  But being an atheist and searching for life's big mysteries are mutually exclusive.  Being one doesn't link you to the other.

Did you really mean mutually exclusive? I'm not sure what you're saying.

137
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 13, 2010, 07:03:31 pm »
Let's calm down a little bit again, shall we?

Quote from: Grakelin on March 13, 2010, 03:57:01 pm
The belief an atheist has on the purpose of the universe is that there is no purpose to the universe. Let's stick to the definition Neruz provided, and that I posted from the dictionary website "beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", and not try to change the definition to suit our arguments.

Change the definition to suit our arguments? Ahem.

You guys are not using the dictionary definition. You are using an incomplete definition. As evidenced by that Neruz couldn't come up with an example of a religion that wouldn't also fit one of the other criteria as described on that very dictionary. But hey, if you guys want to have your argument over that private definition of yours, why not. I'm out though!

138
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 13, 2010, 10:57:06 am »
Yeah Neruz, something having a purpose implies some intelligent agent attributing a purpose to that something.

Quote from: Neruz on March 13, 2010, 08:34:12 am
Quote
Breed isn't much of a purpose in life

Sounds like a pretty good purpose to me. Care to explain what's wrong with it?

There's nothing inherently wrong with that purpose if that's the purpose you want to assign to your life.  It would, arguably, be wrong however to argue that this purpose follows from reasons other than your personal arbitrary choice.

We are subject to evolution, but making aspects of evolution - DNA replication - your personal purpose is arbitrary. We are also subject to gravity, so you might as well make the purpose of your life to jump off a cliff...

I mean, it's up to you, really  :)

139
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 13, 2010, 06:48:19 am »
While I'm glad the discussion isn't going in circles anymore about the definition of atheism and religion, you guys lost me now. What is the discussion about now, and why?

 
Quote from: Neruz on March 13, 2010, 01:23:26 am
Your DNA would say you have the purpose of successfully reproducing.

Don't know about you, by last time I checked, my DNA doesn't talk.

But seriously, I'm not sure what are getting at here. Attributing a purpose to or deriving one from evolution is about as meaningful as deriving one from gravity.

Quote from: Neruz on March 13, 2010, 02:26:25 am
Quote from: MrWiggles on March 13, 2010, 02:19:08 am
The population is rising, but the percentage by which it is rising, is declining. The population is equalling out, and will reach equilibrium about 2050 or so, as the projections suggest. As what happening here is that first world nation are having population decline with national births, but its being off set by immigration as those escape third world countries. The population after 2050 may very well start declining, until a new equilibrium is reached and world level of living keeps rising.

The fact that you think that some sort of 'equilibrium' will be reached implies that you think at some point things will stop changing. If so, you do not understand how life works at all.

Sorry what are you guys arguing about? Population levels reaching a ceiling is a natural consequence of resources being bounded.

Quote from: MrWiggles on March 13, 2010, 02:19:08 am
Why this continues to happen in flora and fauna is a mystery. Its one of those 'why' questions, that may very well have a definitive 'how' answer.

Sorry what is a mystery? I can't see a mystery here.


Quote from: MrWiggles on March 13, 2010, 03:29:53 am
Human beings are unique in our application of our mind.

While I'm at loss why we are discussing this now, my opinion is that it is not clear in how far the difference in between humans and other species is really qualitative or categorical, and not just quantitative. As for consciousness specifically, I am of the opinion that at the very least all mammals have conscious experience (i.e. aware experience - not necessarily self-awareness, though), seeing as all mammals are using essentially the same hardware brain-wise, qualitatively speaking.

140
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 12, 2010, 05:23:46 pm »
Quote from: Neruz on March 12, 2010, 04:40:44 pm
I would be most interested in a Religion that does not hit the 'cause, nature and purpose of the universe' part.

You owe me a religion that doesn't meet any of the additional characteristics as well!  ;)

But yeah, I don't know much about different religions, but I would imagine there could be religions that do not have a creation myth, and thus are agnostic towards the 'cause' of the universe.

As for the 'purpose', well, I guess in Christianity it's not clear what the purpose of the universe is, but it is kind of implied that there is a purpose due to the (ill-defined) omnipotence and infinite quality of god, or some such.

However, take a religion where the gods are not omnipotent but rather just higher powers, and where the universe itself wasn't created by gods or anything with a goal in mind, then you probably don't get a statement of belief about its purpose or the existence of a purpose. For example, here's a creation myth of the ancient Greek:

Quote
"Myths of origin" or "creation myths" represent an attempt to render the universe comprehensible in human terms and explain the origin of the world.[22] The most widely accepted version at the time, although a philosophical account of the beginning of things, is reported by Hesiod, in his Theogony. He begins with Chaos, a yawning nothingness. Out of the void emerged Eurynome,[citation needed] Gê or Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.[23] Without male assistance, Gaia gave birth to Oranos (the Sky) who then fertilized her. From that union were born [.... bla bla]

I don't see how that would imply any purpose to the universe more than a scientific theory of the origin of the universe would.

Quote from: chaoticag on March 12, 2010, 05:09:14 pm
I think saying that being an Atheist is believing in something is pretty false. For one thing, it isn't really faith based, since if an ultimate being(s) proved his/their existance and influence, the existance of a soul and so on, then there wouldn't be any athiests, whether or not you think said being(s) is/are good or evil.

Secondly, there is no set of beliefs that are in any way standardised that Atheists follow. An Atheist can believe in anything he/she wishes to, so long as they maintain a disbelief of the existence of gods. Lack of belief is zero, not a negative number, in the same way that dryness is a lack of water.

I don't see how you are bringing new arguments to the table. To restate my own opinion on the matter: There are different forms of atheisms, and some do indeed involve a statement of belief, not just a lack thereof (e.g., "I believe gods do not exist", "I believe the biblical god does not exist", etc.).

I also don't think confusing things further by bringing "faith" into the discussion is helpful. Yet another term everyone is going to argue about...

141
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 12, 2010, 10:16:30 am »
Quote from: Neruz on March 12, 2010, 10:00:47 am
Is String Theory a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? (As far as i am aware, it is not. String Theory might explain the nature of the universe, and perhaps could lead to an answer for the cause of the universe, but no science will ever explain the purpose of the universe.)

Yes, I agree that science shouldn't usually be about "purposes". But I'm not sure if the sentence necessarily has to be read to mean that religion has to address all three of cause, nature and purpose. I can certainly come up with a counter example of a religion that does not address one of these things, either.

Quote from: Neruz on March 12, 2010, 10:00:47 am
Quote
2. If, however, the requirement is necessary, but not sufficient for something to be a religion, as suggested by your second sentence, but the further characteristics are completely optional: Then please tell me how you would ever tell that something that meets the requirement is not a religion.

Well, since the only time the classification 'Religion' actually matters is for purposes of law, that's when a bunch of Politicians, and possibly Lawyers and other civil servants, get together and have a debate as to if the set of beliefs qualifies as a Religion or not for tax purposes and soforth.

Well, apparently the definition matters to us, or otherwise we wouldn't have this silly discussion. Actually, it doesn't really matter to me personally what the exact definition is - because there is none - I'm just trying argue against what I perceive as wrong definitions that lead to misunderstandings and wrong conclusions.

Quote from: Neruz on March 12, 2010, 10:00:47 am
Quote
3. Finally, please give examples of belief systems commonly or scholarly thought of as religions that do not meet any of the other criteria.

I'd need to go find some on the intertubes, and as it is 2am and i am about to go to sleep, that will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm sure there's at least one religion somewhere that lacks superhuman agencies, ritual activities and a moral code.

I can wait  :).

142
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:39:02 am »
This is really getting silly.

It's a vague term. It doesn't have a strict definition. Those are the things that are usually associated with it. If none are them are present, it's probably not a religion.

Please tell me:

1. If the requirement ("a set of beliefs about...") by itself is sufficient to make something a religion:

Assume I believe string theory to be true. Does that mean I'm a religious person? That I follow the religion of String Theory?

2. If, however, the requirement is necessary, but not sufficient for something to be a religion, as suggested by your second sentence, but the further characteristics are completely optional: Then please tell me how you would ever tell that something that meets the requirement is not a religion.

3. Finally, please give examples of belief systems commonly or scholarly thought of as religions that do not meet any of the other criteria.

Edit: clarification


143
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 12, 2010, 05:43:35 am »
Quote from: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 11:42:16 pm
Everybody is a religious person, yes, but you know the context that people use the term in.

That's just not how people use the term, colloquially or not.

Quote from: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 11:42:16 pm
I'm using the definition provided in this thread by Neruz. This is also the definition given here.

Neruz' definition as given is just not sufficient. The linked definition actually is, you guys just ignored the rest of the paragraph after the very first snippet:

Quote
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Yes, the later aspects are somewhat optional in themselves ("esp.", "usually", "often"), but that's just because not all of them have to be true always. You would expect at least some of them to be true for something to qualify as a religion.

There might be borderline cases such as certain forms of Buddhism. But science isn't one of them...

144
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 08:25:39 pm »
Sorry for the double post, I'm trying to avoid editing confusion.

Here's wikipedia again:

Quote
A religion is any systematic approach to living [...]

Bang. That's already where the identification with science falls short. But here's the full paragraph (emphasis mine):

Quote
A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth, but it is more commonly defined in religious studies as the patterns that express that faith and reinforce it in day-to-day living. One can share the philosophy of a religion, believing in its higher truth, without manifesting that faith religiously.

Next paragraph:

Quote
Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws and ethics and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

So religion is a vague term, but it usually involves belief in some higher power, a moral code, practices and rituals, a life philosophy, etc etc etc.  Actually, the parts in bold above characterise it pretty well.

145
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 08:05:45 pm »
So Grakelin, I am effectively an atheist.  Are you seriously saying that when someone asks me

"Are you religious"

I am supposed to say yes? And then, that atheism is my religion?

Edit: And no, that is not the definition of religion, sorry. It's a vague concept concerning a social phenomenon and doesn't have a strict definition.

Again: If I believe string theory to be true (something about the nature of the universe), that means I'm a religious person??

146
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 05:01:36 pm »
Quote from: Cthulhu on March 11, 2010, 04:30:18 pm
Actually, Scientism is a real thing.  How widespread it is probably depends on whether you ask a scientist or someone else.

Yes, and I think this fits the bill quite nicely for what Siquo wants to criticize. However, it uses terms such as "ideology", "dogma" and "doctrines", and it is not saying that science is actually treated like a religion.

But yeah, let's not get bogged down with semantics. Even if one would like to say that in scientism, science is treated "like a religion", the underlying assumption is that 'proper' science itself is not a religion (which Siquo agrees with).

147
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 01:34:55 pm »
Quote from: G-Flex on March 11, 2010, 12:05:05 pm
Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 04:03:14 am
I still stand by my previous point, atheism is a belief.

This doesn't make any sense, and I've already stated why. The absence of a particular belief is not, in itself, a belief. You aren't even necessarily stating that "God is real" is false; you could simply have no opinion.

Would you mind addressing my contribution? Because I agree with Siquo and Grakelin in that one regard, that atheism is a statement of belief, or a collection thereof, unless we are talking about agnosticism.


Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 11:26:27 am
Quote from: dreiche2 on March 11, 2010, 10:32:47 am
No reason to rephrase it. Saying a statement is false is saying the negation of the statement is true, so that's covered already.
Only in logic. Greek orthodox tradition, for instance, sais you can only describe God in double negatives:
You cannot say that God does not exist.
Language is a lot richer than logic is.

I fail to see your point. The statement as such can still be negated:

"You cannot say that God does not exist" vs. "You can say that God exist". By making that first statement, you voiced your belief in that statement being true. So where's the problem? Not that it really matters...

Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 11:26:27 am
Quote
No, if many people would really treat science as a religion, then it would be a religion.
No. Science as a philosophy itself has pretty much ruled out a lot of things it could cover, it can never answer a "why" because that's just out of scope. It cannot describe certain things because it limits itself. This is pure Science and it's beautiful.

There are however a lot of people who do believe that Science holds All Answers, and treat it as a religion. To differentiate, I call that Scienceism. :) It is a corruption of the ideals of pure Science, and a foothold for abberrations such as Intelligent Design, and for Christian fundamentalists who feel threatened by this newfangled "religion". Truth is that Science shouldn't and can't ever replace any religion.
Believing in the dogmas of science (such as uniformity of law and uniformity of processes across time and space, that there is a real world irrespective of our senses) does not automatically make you a Scienceist, by the way. It does limit your worldview, however, in my humble opinion.

I don't get what are you getting at. I stick with my statement that there are not many people who "treat science as religion" (again, unless this is supposed to be a metaphor or limited comparison). Please give examples to the contrary.

148
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 10:32:47 am »
Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 09:03:51 am
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true or false.

No reason to rephrase it. Saying a statement is false is saying the negation of the statement is true, so that's covered already.

Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 09:03:51 am
Note that I did not say Science is a religion or can be viewed as such, I say that there are lots of people in the world who treat Science as if it were a religion. Some mystical set of rules, destined to find the Absolute Truth of the universe.

Well, it kind of makes sense as a comparison/metaphor, but it's still a little bit of a hyperbole I reckon. Accepting something unquestionably does not imply a religion, although one might associate such behaviour with religion (and it is surely against the spirit of science). As for striving for Truth or something, I guess that's just a form of idealism.

No, if many people would really treat science as a religion, then it would be a religion.

149
General Discussion / Re: Atheists
« on: March 11, 2010, 06:59:03 am »
Quote from: Siquo on March 11, 2010, 04:03:14 am
Science may be a religion (apart from being "Science", I'll call this Scienceism)

No, it's not. Any definition that would lead to science, in general, being classified as religion, would lead to so many things being classified as a religion that the term would totally lose its common meaning.

Quote from: Cheeetar on March 11, 2010, 03:33:57 am
Quote from: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 02:56:58 am
I do not understand why you continue to say that not believing something exists and believing that something does not exist is difference. Your analogies do not fit the description.

If the individual is uncertain, they are Agnostic, not Atheist. If you leave your piece of paper blank while the other person writes 'God', you don't just not have a belief system. You believe there is nothing on the page.

By the very name, atheism is a-theism. Not theism. It is not the belief there is no god. It is no belief in a god. It is the lack of belief in a god. An atheist is bereft of belief in a god. An atheist is not necessarily one who believes that there is no god, it is merely one that has no belief that there is a god.

I think you guys are having a discussion about a red herring here. I'm actually with Grakelin in that atheism, in any form but agnosticism, does imply a statement of belief, namely "I believe there is no god", or "I believe there is no god relevant to me", or "I believe that the Christian (etc.) god does not exist".

However, the crux is that belief, in general, does not imply religion or faith or whatever:

Quote from: wikipedia
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

There.

I can believe that string theory is true (despite lack of evidence), I can believe that special relativity is true (with evidence, but that doesn't mean the theory can't be false), I can believe that the moon is smaller than the earth, or I can believe that Obama is better for the world than Bush, and none of these statements have anything to do with religion.


150
General Discussion / Re: On the Topic of Atheism
« on: March 04, 2010, 08:19:49 am »
Quote from: Idiom on March 03, 2010, 05:03:29 pm
They kind of fragmented around the time I caught a wiff of the "science conquers religion" nonsense, or at least that's about the time I remember it was at a point of no return.

Well, it was me who used the word "retreat", so as you are still going on about that, I should probably say that I didn't want to provoke the association of a "war" here.

Apart from that, yeah I don't think there's much more point in continuing that particular argument. Apparently you had a couple of bad experiences with atheists on the internet, and now you keep on ranting against "the" atheist, as if it's a singular type of person.

And I still would say that the whole argument is a red herring as well. Islamic countries introducing the Sharia? That's a problem. Science being opposed on religious grounds? That's a problem. US politics being influenced by religion? That's a problem (at least to me). But some atheists being too vocal and bickering on internet forums? Really? As if rudeness on the internet was specific to atheists...

Finally, as you like to equate atheism with religion: I have yet to see people blowing each other up (and/or themselves) over atheism. You might say, if people do that for religious reasons, then in reality someone is abusing religion as a tool for some other means, as you have stated before (and I wouldn't necessarily agree). But even then, apparently atheism at least doesn't offer itself as a tool for such abuse.

That does of course not mean that atheists wouldn't blow each other up for other reasons, but that holds true for religious people as well.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 38