Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 03:23:34 pm
This thread is not about just stating your own viewpoint. This thread is about making cogent arguments to convince others. You're entitled to your own beliefs, and you don't have to defend them to us. However, if you post in this thread expect to have your beliefs challenged by one group or another. "I can believe whatever I want, and you're all fascist Nazi douchebags for trying to change me" is not an acceptable defense, whether you're an atheist or a theist.
Fuck it, go ahead and talk about these, but be exceptionally careful to stay civil. It's very likely you'll come to a point where you have to debate what are appropriate fundamental assumptions about how to define truth, and while that's sure to be interesting, I don't want that to be here unless everyone seems to be on board with it because it gets very tangential indeed. Otherwise, be willing to accept the disagreement for now, or start a new thread.
No vague references to the other thread. If you want to refer back to an argument that's already been made, you need to go find the post it appeared in, and quote it.
I'm going to reserve a post below this one. As arguments start to get made repeatedly, I'd appreciate if whoever calls it out as such makes a note of the post where it was made first and PMs me the quote. I'll then add it to that post in a list of Arguments That Are Not Original. I'm asking for your help here, because I doubt if I'll have time to keep track of everything myself. If I ever find that I no longer have the stomach to deal with this anymore, somebody else can step up: make a post cataloging new ones, and I'll link to it in the Arguments That Are Not Original post.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, and just to make it clear, stay civil. I don't care if you're insulting another poster directly or implicitly, or even if you're insulting a random group of people who have no presence here, this type of thread gets out of control quickly. So basically as soon as I see the word "idiot" or really anything along those lines getting bandied about, this thing gets a lock. You know, barring the inevitable jackass who starts posting "idiot idiot idiot idiot" over and over again in an attempt to make me lock it.
CLARIFICATION: This is my thread-moderator voice. It is necessary for this thread to make a distinction between when I'm participating in the discussion, and when I'm telling people to behave themselves. I don't want people thinking I'm making ad hominem attacks because I can't think of any other way to argue; when I use it, this red text isn't a rebuttal. It's only meant to be a warning that people need to adjust their attitudes or start a new thread for bashing people who don't agree with them, because I don't want it here.
ADDITIONAL EDIT: So there was an argument about terminology around page 160-something. To resolve it, we're going to use a fixed set of definitions.
*An Atheist is a person with no belief in a deity. This is a very broad category.
*An Implicit Atheist is a person who has no position of any kind, typically through being unaware of the concept of belief in a deity.
*An Explicit Atheist is a person whose beliefs include no belief in a deity; they are aware that this belief is absent.
*A Weak Atheist is an Explicit Atheist who does not believe a rational belief about a deity can exist.
*An Agnostic is a Weak Atheist who explicitly believes a rational belief about a deity is impossible. The distinction is the same as that between "I believe there is no God" and "I do not belief there is a God", a typical distinction made in discussions of Atheism.
*A Strong Atheist is an Explicit Atheist who actively believes that there are no deities.
DIAGRAM OF INCLUSIVENESS (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Bauglir/Diagram-1.png). This diagram shows the relationships between the above groups in a handy, graphical manner. Posters are welcome, even encouraged, to refer to it whenever a terminology debate erupts because somebody didn't read the OP.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES: Okay, I'm stealing some conflict-handling rules.
If the rules in this OP are violated, or I decide a conversation has become too serious a derail, I'll first post a warning. In the case of derails, I'll try to post two; one an unofficial "hey, guys, let's bring this to a close, okay", the second an official "We're not going to be talking about this anymore" message. Only the official warning will use red text.
If the problem continues, I will then lock the thread for 3 days. I will explicitly state that this is the case in the warning.
If, after the thread is opened, the problem still persists, I will repeat locks until it either stops or I get tired of opening the thread. If there's a specific person I believe is responsible, I will instead simply report the poster in question and post a warning telling people not to respond; any responses will result in a lock for 3 days, with no warnings. I recommend you use the ignore functionality if you have to (we have that, right?). If moderator action of any kind is taken, you're not to discuss it in this thread - we're not a thread for celebrating or lamenting bans or mutes. Violation of this rule will result in lock for 3 days, with no warnings.
When a derail occurs, I'll add it to the second post and note it as such. Posters are not to bring up the topic again without first PMing me - if you can convince me that you have a rational argument that's new to the discussion, which you think we can discuss civilly, then you can make the actual post. I'm sorry to make this necessary. I'll follow the same procedure for derails above (starting with an informal warning, then an official one, then moving on to locks) if an old derail crops up again; I understand that new posters won't be familiar with the thread's history with these topics, so I don't want to be too draconian about it.
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 03:24:14 pm
"Your Argument Is Not Original" (Without Reference To An Earlier Occurrence Which Was Resolved)
"You're Stupid For Posting Here, This Thread Will Never Get Anywhere"
"You're Misclassifying My Beliefs" (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Bauglir/Diagram-1.png)
Topics That Are Off-Limits
Agnosticism is not a subdivision of Atheism (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72328.msg2569529#msg2569529). The consensus in the thread has been that the difference is semantic, and while important to some, it allows greater precision to define Atheism as any lack of belief in deities, and to classify the typical assumption of an Atheist denial of deities as "Strong Atheism". This topic has led to some extremely long derails, which is why it is currently off-limits, but, as always, you can PM me if you think you have something new and valuable to say on the matter.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 04, 2010, 03:30:07 pm
Post by: Tsarwash on December 04, 2010, 03:30:13 pm
Quote
Almost all societies have formed a ritual belief system, often very independant of each other. Some might say it was a necessary moral evolution stemming from our own mortality. The reasons that we have religion and the animals do not, (as far as we know) could be derived from our knowledge of our own future demise, perhaps evolving as a defense mechanism to combat this. Just one idea about it. Possibly if we discovered immortality, then religious beliefs would wither away.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 03:33:11 pm
Can we add "You're argument isn't original" to "Arguments that are not original"?
Seconded.
This thread is not about Evolution vs. Creationism. While these are interesting topics which might be a subset of this topic, they lead to way too much derailing. And it's a peeve of mine. If you want to discuss it, start another thread; it's certainly a sufficiently volatile topic. Likewise, this isn't about the Big Bang vs. Creationism, or any other Scientific Theory Involving History vs. any other Religious Account Of History.
Brilliant. If we can avoid the whole Fundamentalism/Creationism mess maybe we can actually say sensible things about the topic.
Hahahaha! Sorry.
Post by: Mephisto on December 04, 2010, 03:58:25 pm
"Belief" is a western bias. If you're a member of a western religion, that "belief" may not exist in eastern religions.
Nontheists (or atheists, if you insist on using a word with so many negative connotations) do not believe in a deity, a suprahuman being, etc. That does not mean that they're areligious. There are plenty of atheistic religions - Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism (can go either way), and, believe it or not, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can be atheistic depending on what the one interpreting them believes (there's that nasty "belief" word again).
Not believing in the Christian god (or Jewish or Islamic or Shinto or Hindu or other god(s)) does not make you nontheistic. Look at the number of religions I mentioned in this paragraph alone. They each have at least one deity. If you believe in one of those beings or some other supreme entity, you are by definition not a nontheist.
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 04:24:36 pm
I could believe in a weak benevolent god (but what's the point in worshipping him?) or a powerful apathetic or malevolent god (who probably would hate you worshipping him or bugging him), but it's impossible to believe in an all-powerful and benevolent one.
I also can't believe that most Westerners (Christians, at least) have never actually read the book they base their entire lives on. It's just... Ridiculous. Even I know more about the Bible and the Christian religion than a lot of Catholics I know.
An example: I was talking to some girl about our parents. She was a Catholic and said her parents were Catholics but her mother had divorced her father. I asked her if she'd sent a letter to the Pope asking for it and she told me no. I laughed and joked that she mustn't be a very good Catholic, then, as only the Pope can annul marriages within the Catholic faith. She flipped out at me and claimed that Catholics didn't believe that and that people could divorce whoever they liked.
I laughed my arse off. Three months later, I asked her if she was still a Catholic and if what I'd said was true. She bluntly ignored me and refused to ever talk to me again. Apparently she's still claiming she's Catholic, though. :D
Post by: Dasleah on December 04, 2010, 04:28:15 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 04, 2010, 04:32:14 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 04, 2010, 04:32:28 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 04:36:04 pm
I also can't believe that most Westerners (Christians, at least) have never actually read the book they base their entire lives on. It's just... Ridiculous. Even I know more about the Bible and the Christian religion than a lot of Catholics I know.
An example: I was talking to some girl about our parents. She was a Catholic and said her parents were Catholics but her mother had divorced her father. I asked her if she'd sent a letter to the Pope asking for it and she told me no. I laughed and joked that she mustn't be a very good Catholic, then, as only the Pope can annul marriages within the Catholic faith. She flipped out at me and claimed that Catholics didn't believe that and that people could divorce whoever they liked.
I laughed my arse off. Three months later, I asked her if she was still a Catholic and if what I'd said was true. She bluntly ignored me and refused to ever talk to me again. Apparently she's still claiming she's Catholic, though. :D
It doesn't really matter in practice though. None of that. It sounds like you're arguing for the average religious person to be a fundamentalist, which is crazy. That's the last thing anyone wants. Catholics get divorced all the time in practice, the pope isn't really that powerful anymore. And besides, they've never read the book, but if they've gone to church they've had it read to them. That's what they do in church. It's a weekly religious lecture.
And if they don't go to church and haven't read the book, it's likely they're Catholic in name only. Which is okay because that doesn't really mean anything.
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 04:38:07 pm
Suggestion: politely tell people to keep off the thread if all they're gonna do is say how stupid everyone else is for posting in it.
Added to 2nd post. You're on a roll with these things.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:38:42 pm
Yeah... That's almost like saying you are not a true atheist for not boycotting churches or whatnot.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:39:23 pm
Arguments That Are Not Original
"This Thread Will Never Get Anywhere"
Fuuuu you ruined my argument.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 04:40:31 pm
Don't be a dick.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:42:03 pm
Thus it is against the rules.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 04:44:15 pm
hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
Should we just merge this with the Cannabis thread?
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 04:44:43 pm
It doesn't really matter in practice though. None of that. It sounds like you're arguing for the average religious person to be a fundamentalist, which is crazy. That's the last thing anyone wants. Catholics get divorced all the time in practice, the pope isn't really that powerful anymore. And besides, they've never read the book, but if they've gone to church they've had it read to them. That's what they do in church. It's a weekly religious lecture.
And if they don't go to church and haven't read the book, it's likely they're Catholic in name only. Which is okay because that doesn't really mean anything.
I'm just of the opinion that people should know what belief system they are meant to have before claiming they're of a religion. I'm not saying they should stick to it completely, merely know it.
And, to be honest, that's just selected passages from the Bible that the priest in question wants to make a point about.
And it means something to the people who collect figures on how many of each religion there are in each country.
Religion hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
Christianity hurt gays, lesbians, Jews, black people, people who wanted contraception, wives who wanted to get rid of their husbands, Muslims etc etc for centuries. It's still hurting Catholic Africans, children, gays, lesbians, Jews etc etc.
What were you saying?
Post by: Micro102 on December 04, 2010, 04:45:26 pm
Religion hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
I'm pretty sure more people have been killed in the name of religion then for any other reason.
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 04:46:41 pm
Religion hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
You're like my favorite person ever right now. This is actually my position (when the first clause of your first sentence is true, and let's be honest, it almost always is; mostly people tack religious justification onto hurt they were already going to do anyway, so it's not the religion hurting anyone).
Still, it's fun to talk about as long as we don't get into "Your beliefs are bad and you should feel bad" territory. Figuring out why you believe something is never a bad thing, if you're prepared to actually think about it (which is why I put that whole thing about "not just stating your beliefs in the OP), and if you're not then this is probably not the thread for you.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 04:46:51 pm
Religion hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
Christianity hurt gays, lesbians, Jews, black people, people who wanted contraception, wives who wanted to get rid of their husbands, Muslims etc etc for centuries. It's still hurting Catholic Africans, children, gays, lesbians, Jews etc etc.
What were you saying?
People hurt people. Religion does not define people, people define religion. You can quote the bible to support anything you could possibly want.
The Nazi's used the bible to support there view, and yet not all Cristian are Anti-Semetic.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:47:52 pm
No, because their may be real thoughts on the health penalties of weed.hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
Should we just merge this with the Cannabis thread?
Christianity hurt gays, lesbians, Jews, black people, people who wanted contraception, wives who wanted to get rid of their husbands, Muslims etc etc for centuries. It's still hurting Catholic Africans, children, gays, lesbians, Jews etc etc.
What were you saying?
Okay. Going to go Scotsman here.
Religion hurts no one, and it gives people harmless pleasure.
Don't be a dick.
I'm pretty sure more people have been killed in the name of religion then for any other reason.
I belive the crusades were more economically motivated.
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 04:48:52 pm
You can quote the bible to support anything you could possibly want.
This. This is nearly literally true. It helps that the New and Old testaments were directly contradictory, so by picking whether you want a vengeful or a forgiving God, you can pull off just about whatever you feel like. Just about the only thing you can't support with a quote from the Bible is atheism.
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 04:49:16 pm
People hurt people. Religion does not define people, people define religion. You can quote the bible to support anything you could possibly want.
Religion gives the justification that people need.
"The Bible says that gays are bad! Kill 'em!"
"The Bible says that Jews killed the saviour! Put them in ghettos!"
"The Pope says that black people are sub-human! Put them into slavery!"
And so on.
I have no trouble with people being "spiritual" or whatever, but RELIGION is bad.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 04:50:15 pm
Religion gives the justification that people need.
Justification?
You can get that from anywhere.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:50:30 pm
You can quote the bible to support anything you could possibly want.
This. This is nearly literally true. It helps that the New and Old testaments were directly contradictory, so by picking whether you want a vengeful or a forgiving God, you can pull off just about whatever you feel like. Just about the only thing you can't support with a quote from the Bible is atheism.
I think we can finagle that.
What is worse. Worshiping a false god or not worshiping at all?
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 04:51:53 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 04, 2010, 04:53:01 pm
Religion is/was a powerful thing and controlled practically the entire world in earlier times. People might have had anterior motives, but would no religion mean they would have no reason to "justify" their actions?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 04:54:00 pm
It happened because they were different.
Post by: Cthulhu on December 04, 2010, 04:55:47 pm
People hurt people. Religion does not define people, people define religion. You can quote the bible to support anything you could possibly want.
Religion gives the justification that people need.
"The Bible says that gays are bad! Kill 'em!"
"The Bible says that Jews killed the saviour! Put them in ghettos!"
"The Pope says that black people are sub-human! Put them into slavery!"
And so on.
I have no trouble with people being "spiritual" or whatever, but RELIGION is bad.
If there were no religion people would find a different reason. It's human nature to hate, religion is just an outlet.
Personally, I cannot believe in an all-powerful, benevolent god.
I could believe in a weak benevolent god (but what's the point in worshipping him?) or a powerful apathetic or malevolent god (who probably would hate you worshipping him or bugging him), but it's impossible to believe in an all-powerful and benevolent one.
Also, does rephrased Epicurus argument count as an old argument?
Can we add "You're argument isn't original" to "Arguments that are not original"?
You can't have an unoriginal argument but you can't point out unoriginal arguments either? How the hell is that supposed to work? This just in, it's against the law to steal but also against the law to enforce that law.
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
Hopy shit, realmfighter said something smart. We're through the looking glass now.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 04:56:29 pm
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they weredifferent.had resources that made many European kings rich.
I think a good question would be "If there was no religion, would all those people have died?"
I think I can say yes.
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 04:57:57 pm
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
Well, actually, they happened because the Christians wanted the Holy Lands.
You know, those places considered holy (ie. of religious significance) to the Christian world?
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 04:58:32 pm
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
They happened because of oil.
Can we add "You're argument isn't original" to "Arguments that are not original"?
You can't have an unoriginal argument but you can't point out unoriginal arguments either? How the hell is that supposed to work? This just in, it's against the law to steal but also against the law to enforce that law.
I know, isn't it beautiful?
Best part: there's nearly no such thing as an original argument.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 04:59:24 pm
Well, actually, they happened because the Christians wanted the Holy Lands.
You know, those places considered holy (ie. of religious significance) to the Christian world?
No, that was there justification.
A justification that they could have replaced very easily.
Post by: Humaan on December 04, 2010, 04:59:42 pm
I belive the crusades were more economically motivated.
Why am i doing this...?
For what reason, do I ask, you think this? There was no economic incentive to gain, or so my (limited, mind you) research has told me.
NINJAEDIT: What, resources? You mean the resorces the Muslim traders were already TRADING to the European Kings?
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:01:27 pm
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
Well, actually, they happened because the Christians wanted the Holy Lands.
You know, those places considered holy (ie. of religious significance) to the Christian world?
If you really think that kings of Europe invaded to get some sandy tombs... You are silly.
I belive the crusades were more economically motivated.
Why am i doing this...?
For what reason, do I ask, you think this? There was no economic incentive to gain, or so my (limited, mind you) research has told me.
NINJAEDIT: What, resources? You mean the resorces the Muslim traders were already TRADING to the European Kings?
Yes.
Why am i doing this...?
This whole thing is a bad idea and I am sure I am just as wrong as you/everyone else. Also, it really has no baring on the thread. So I have no idea.
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 05:02:15 pm
No, that was there justification.
A justification that they could have replaced very easily.
So, you're saying that the Crusades just happened because the Christians just didn't like the colour of the Muslim's skin?
Damn, you must think that the world's rulers were as stupid as you are.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:03:25 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 05:03:38 pm
Somebody cite a source about why the Crusades were fought, or drop it. Or we get a lock.
I'd add Personal Attacks, but it really shouldn't be necessary. It's the first damn bullet in the Forum Guidelines, which apply here as well as they do everywhere.
Post by: The Transcendent Tyrant on December 04, 2010, 05:05:00 pm
Quote
The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and their campaigns were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:05:17 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:08:34 pm
Quote
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.
Alexio was not friends with the pope at the time, this gave the pope leverage over him.
Quote
a Christian "just war" might enhance the wider standing of an aggressively ambitious leader of Europe as Gregory saw himself. The northerners would be cemented to Rome, and their troublesome knights could see the only kind of action that suited them.
So pope gains armies. And stops his allies from fighting each other.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 05:09:28 pm
So, you're saying that the Crusades just happened because the Christians just didn't like the colour of the Muslim's skin?
Damn, you must think that the world's rulers were as stupid as you are.
[counter-insult removed]
Post by: Toady One on December 04, 2010, 05:10:27 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 04, 2010, 05:10:38 pm
I bet war was some sort of entertainment for king back then. Also good for economy.
Post by: Tsarwash on December 04, 2010, 05:12:00 pm
Just to take one example, please show me that religion has not helped to incite the Northern Ireland troubles for the last 40 years.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 05:12:09 pm
Come on now.
Post by: Andir on December 04, 2010, 05:13:38 pm
Damn, you must think that the world's rulers were as stupid as you are.Calm it.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 05:14:42 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:19:09 pm
Really Realm? Really?
Don't sink to his level.
helped
I don't think that is possible.
And you are right, we can not say that it has not caused or helped issues thou out time. But at the same time, a blanket condemnation of it based on ignoring the many complicated factors in many issues is not something I will stand by for.
As in: Can you really say that all the issues of northern Ireland are caused by religion? For instance, I believe you are talking about the 1960-sometime who know it is suppose to have ended 2006 but not really troubles? Because I can say, that seems less religion and more political to me.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 04, 2010, 05:29:12 pm
On one level, without the catholic church, there probably would've been noone in a position to initiate the crusades. On another level, it's probably true that most crusaders didn't really have religion on their mind while fighting (the idea of being able to keep all your loot and destroy stuff at will was pretty attractive to them).
Post by: eerr on December 04, 2010, 05:29:30 pm
Can't you people let sleeping dogs lie down for a little while?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 05:30:19 pm
Can't you people let sleeping dogs lie down for a little while?
*Looks at the thread*
No?
Post by: Shinziril on December 04, 2010, 05:31:21 pm
Of course, even such a simple criterion as this can cause lots of arguments. For example, I used to go to a fairly liberal Methodist church; that seemed like a fairly good religion by this definition. They were careful to be tolerant and such, and did quite a bit of volunteer/charity/donation work. Catholicism is slightly further down the scale; it has some unhelpful things that are followed with varying degrees of fervor, depending, but plenty of Catholics are perfectly good people, and Catholicism can get quite a bit of charity work done due to sheer size. Islam is an interesting one; it is currently fairly high on the "external harm" scale, but I could see it becoming something on the same level as the various other modern forms of Christianity. It would just take quite a lot of effort and time, most likely.
"Religion causes external harm" in and of itself can be difficult, because while much persecution is effectively because one group is different than another group in some way, religion is one of the more common rationalizations for this persecution.
At any rate, religion is probably not going to go away entirely for quite a while, if ever. The fact that basically every society ever has had some form of religion indicates that it is something humans are prone to; I am uncertain of the precise reasons why, and would be interested to hear any hypotheses.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 05:32:34 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 04, 2010, 05:34:51 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 05:41:35 pm
Basically, he posits that that the man of the Illiad wasn't conscious and that when the gods speak directly to the characters. It's because instead of internally and consciously directing his actions he literally heard his gods telling him what to do. He says that it originated by people repeatedly hallucinating the instructions given to them by the tribal leader. And this is all after a rigorous re-examination of what consciousness is.
Post by: freeformschooler on December 04, 2010, 05:44:05 pm
I think its because most people don't like the idea that they are insignificant little beings on an insignificant planet in a insignificant galaxy in a universe that itself will die eventually destroying even the most meager trace of there existence even if there was anything left by that point who could care.
The universe itself could be an insignificant speck in a sea of multiverses. Fringe theories gogogo.
On a more serious note, I'm Agnostic. I don't think we can know what's going to happen after we die. We can write books and read NDE's, read the bible and hope for the best, follow along with any religion or tradition we choose, and guess what? There's nothing wrong with that. I support it, and find every religion's beliefs "possible". It is possible that the new chair you got will break under your weight, but it is also possible that it won't. This is not a good example, though, since the heavier you are, the more possible that is. With religion, or the lack thereof, all we can do is fight/argue/believe/don't believe/follow/practice/support and hope for the best.
I go to church, but it's a church where anyone of any religion can come. We had an Islamic guest speaker this week, and an atheistic guest speaker last week. This week will be the "scared away from religious extremists" Agnostic preacher.
Post by: Tsarwash on December 04, 2010, 05:56:00 pm
I don't think that is possible.I am not suggesting a blanket condemnation of religion, or suggesting that it is solely the cause of conflicts by any means. NI is clearly a complicated mess of pride, politics, poverty, and religious bigotry. I knew for quite a while that the one factor that was likely to reduce the violence was reducing povety, and indeed that was what happened. But saying that, there are many other areas in the UK that has similar levels of poverty, and they didn't have the 'troubles.' I'm just saying that history has shown that religion can be a cause of 'good' or 'evil' or war or peace. Europe has had plenty of violence stoked up by religious beliefs. Bristol, where I live burnt three people alive * for religous dissention, in late medievil times. One of these people was just pointing out how intolerant some of the clergy has become. And of course there is a big difference between religion and personal faith.
And you are right, we can not say that it has not caused or helped issues thou out time. But at the same time, a blanket condemnation of it based on ignoring the many complicated factors in many issues is not something I will stand by for.
As in: Can you really say that all the issues of northern Ireland are caused by religion? For instance, I believe you are talking about the 1960-sometime who know it is suppose to have ended 2006 but not really troubles? Because I can say, that seems less religion and more political to me.
* Some jokers even put green wood on the fire to make the suffering more pronounced.
Post by: Rilder on December 04, 2010, 06:00:10 pm
The universe itself could be an insignificant speck in a sea of multiverses. Fringe theories gogogo.
Which would be an insignificant speck in a sea of SUPERMULTIVERSES.
Post by: Bauglir on December 04, 2010, 06:01:42 pm
The universe itself could be an insignificant speck in a sea of multiverses. Fringe theories gogogo.
Which would be an insignificant speck in a sea of SUPERMULTIVERSES.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. You can't just recurse like that. It's like witchcraft. It'd never end! Next you'll be talking about Supersupermultiverses!
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 06:06:02 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 06:10:08 pm
I am not suggesting a blanket condemnation of religion, or suggesting that it is solely the cause of conflicts by any means.
Ah, yes, sorry if I gave you that impression, I was trying to explain why I was taking a stance that many may see as moronic or devils advocate. You seem more reasonable then some, so I thought it was a good idea to to quickly explain my position to you. I believe any discussion with I have with you will end up being a half full/empty deal, with us saying different words but ultimately saying the same thing. Thus I believe a good idea is to agree to agree here.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 04, 2010, 06:38:39 pm
Religion is, in a sense, masturbatory because it makes the practitioner feel god while the imagines an act/being that does not actually exist.
Religion is based on make-believe because, hey - what are those words? People are made to or make themselves believe in something that does not exist.
Furthermore, I mostly subscribe to the old "religion was a placeholder for science and philosophy until those really kicked off" theory.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 06:42:05 pm
If you are trying to state facts don't use loaded terminology. That's why I said fictional, and that's still probably derogatory.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 06:45:39 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on December 04, 2010, 06:46:17 pm
Masturbatory and make-believe are both connotatively negative.
If you are trying to state facts don't use loaded terminology. That's why I said fictional, and that's still probably derogatory.
If I may interject - If you're going to forbid "connotatively negative" words, then there can be no argument. Trying to prove, or at least voice the view that something does not exist, is by definition connotatively negative. The connotation is invalidation of someone else's beliefs, ergo, anything he says to that effect will sound derogatory.
Post by: sonerohi on December 04, 2010, 06:49:39 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 06:55:40 pm
If I may interject - If you're going to forbid "connotatively negative" words, then there can be no argument. Trying to prove, or at least voice the view that something does not exist, is by definition connotatively negative. The connotation is invalidation of someone else's beliefs, ergo, anything he says to that effect will sound derogatory.
I'd say that's denotative negativity, as it's inherent to the definition.
But anyway, my dispute wasn't with negative connotations. That's basically the foundation of rhetoric. My dispute was with calling what amounted to insults facts.
Facts may be offensive and insulting, but it shouldn't be because of their wording.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 06:56:35 pm
I motion that we follow what Aqizzar said. It seems like a sensible notion that will be easy and beneficial to follow.He did not suggest anything...
Post by: Mephisto on December 04, 2010, 06:57:21 pm
God dammit. Just when we were getting somewhere in the other thread.
Religion is, in a sense, masturbatory because it makes the practitioner feel god while the imagines an act/being that does not actually exist.
Religion is based on make-believe because, hey - what are those words? People are made to or make themselves believe in something that does not exist.
Furthermore, I mostly subscribe to the old "religion was a placeholder for science and philosophy until those really kicked off" theory.
This is one of the biases I mentioned. Going by the quoted post, no religions are based around real people? If so, I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius) would (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha) like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_no_Gy%C5%8Dja) interject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C3%B4_V%C4%83n_Chi%C3%AAu) All are verifiably real individuals. I could go on.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on December 04, 2010, 07:12:13 pm
Catholicism is slightly further down the scale; it has some unhelpful things that are followed with varying degrees of fervor, depending, but plenty of Catholics are perfectly good people, and Catholicism can get quite a bit of charity work done due to sheer size.I've often joked about how Catholicism is better than protestantism because it seems to create a lot more apostates who are disgusted by the institution's corruption and hypocrisy. Mostly to apostate Catholics, who agreed with it.
Quote
Islam is an interesting one; it is currently fairly high on the "external harm" scale, but I could see it becoming something on the same level as the various other modern forms of Christianity. It would just take quite a lot of effort and time, most likely.It actually has been just that. Well, not exactly, since you include "modern forms of Christianity" as though that meant "benevolent", rather than the exact opposite. The modern problems stem from the marginalization of the middle east, the leadership of certain countries, most notably Saudi Arabia (although Iran pulls a close second there), and that whole thing with terrorists seizing control of the British territory of Palestine, and the world overall supporting the apartheid theocracy that resulted (although I have heard a rather convincing realpolitik argument that Israel is useful and should be supported specifically because it has an inflammatory presence, that leaves the Middle East fragmented and in a perpetual state of near-chaos, besides serving as a much more convenient target for disaffected locals than the US or Europe. It's also much more brutal, and willing to do extremely unsavory things that most nations would balk at, if only for the bad PR in some cases, and so can serve as a sort of attack dog in the area, who would take the full blame for things we want done, but aren't willing to soil ourselves with doing. Were that the actual reason for the US backing Israel, and not the whole "herpderp if you aint sucking Israel's dick yur a goddamn Nazi!" thing it appears very much to be, then perhaps such support would be excusable).
Goddammit.As I understand it, the other thread hadn't been posted in for a month, before someone bumped it and everyone poured back in to say the things that they'd said earlier, but had forgotten having said. Since it was then on everyone's mind, they started a new thread to say all those things. ::)
Can't you people let sleeping dogs lie down for a little while?
I think Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is probably the most interesting explanation for why human society and religion have been so coincident.That's quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever heard. Not to mention it seems to be using as an example an epic story (actually, what is considered the archetypal hero epic, considering the incompleteness and relatively late rediscovery of the epic of gilgamesh) about a minor war that took place... what was it? Nearly a thousand years earlier?
Basically, he posits that that the man of the Illiad wasn't conscious and that when the gods speak directly to the characters. It's because instead of internally and consciously directing his actions he literally heard his gods telling him what to do. He says that it originated by people repeatedly hallucinating the instructions given to them by the tribal leader. And this is all after a rigorous re-examination of what consciousness is.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 07:36:46 pm
That's quite possibly the most insane thing I've ever heard. Not to mention it seems to be using as an example an epic story (actually, what is considered the archetypal hero epic, considering the incompleteness and relatively late rediscovery of the epic of gilgamesh) about a minor war that took place... what was it? Nearly a thousand years earlier?
Oh yeah it's insane. And he does use the Illiad in Ancient Greek as evidence. But he presents historical, neurological, and archaeological evidence also. And he uses the Bible, and Gilgamesh too I think. He basically does a deep text analyses on them, finding words that require or imply consciousness. And he examines their evolution as texts. Increased incidence of such words later on, more varied and precise terms for consciousness.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 04, 2010, 07:47:50 pm
Make-Believe denotes a healthy imagination. Masturbatory implies sexual independence. How are those negative?
I'd say that's denotative negativity, as it's inherent to the definition.
But anyway, my dispute wasn't with negative connotations. That's basically the foundation of rhetoric. My dispute was with calling what amounted to insults facts.
Facts may be offensive and insulting, but it shouldn't be because of their wording.
The negativity is a matter of interpretation. If my position disagrees with yours, my choice of words is automatically insulting. Especially when religion is concerned, oy oy.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 08:11:03 pm
Not what I was expecting.
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 08:19:53 pm
Religious belief is self-serving (it comforts and assuages believers), promotes group cohesion (encourages interaction with other believers), and is largely mythological (it relies on personification as an explanatory system). And I would include that it is anthropocentric.
None of those things is inherently positive or negative. It might still offend some people to suggest they're true of religion though.
(And I vote we change the title to Theism Redux because that's what we're discussing. Either that or we should debate amongst ourselves about whose atheism is more atheistic. I would probably lose, though my atheism is strong.)
Post by: Heron TSG on December 04, 2010, 08:46:08 pm
I will eat my bowler hat if someone comes up with a new, original argument to use in the a/theism arena.I had to take up the challenge. Here are a few attempts.
1. Everybody is right. Depending on what you think, your world changes because of quantum mechanics.
2. Everybody is wrong. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence or nonexistence of a deity.
3. There is a deity, but if you don't believe in it it erases all memory of it from your brain, leading you to believe that it never existed, and you will never accept that other people know the deity that you will never see.
4. FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is "BULL SHIT", EVIL EDUCATORS block and suppress www.timecube.com. You are educated evil, and might have to kill the evil ONE teaching educators before you can learn that 4 corner days actually exist -but all Cube Truth denied. Dumb ass educators fear me and hide from debate. They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not Cube Truth - for which they would be fired. Evil teachers betray students, as ONE is a Death Value. Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
One of those has to be new to this thread, right?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 04, 2010, 08:51:33 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 04, 2010, 08:53:09 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on December 04, 2010, 08:56:48 pm
amidoinitrite?
This thread is great even though I don't agree with 90% of you guys.
edit: ahahaha the time cube site is hilarious.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 04, 2010, 08:58:14 pm
One of those has to be new to this thread, right?
I like #4
Post by: fqllve on December 04, 2010, 09:01:59 pm
I used to use Opera's TTS, but vozme (http://vozme.com/index.php?lang=en) is great for free.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2010, 06:59:13 am
Post by: Muz on December 05, 2010, 07:20:48 am
This thread is not about just stating your own viewpoint. This thread is about making cogent arguments to convince others. You're entitled to your own beliefs, and you don't have to defend them to us. However, if you post in this thread expect to have your beliefs challenged by one group or another. "I can believe whatever I want, and you're all fascist Nazi douchebags for trying to change me" is not an acceptable defense, whether you're an atheist or a theist.
I don't think you can convince others. Everyone will believe what they want. There's a reason it's called faith. There is no argument on either side, that's why these religion threads go on forever, until people give up on arguing anything, and just derail the thread. I don't believe that some books are enough to justify the existence of something, nor do I believe that just because there's no evidence of it, that it doesn't exist.
Most of the arguments are on attacking claims. Some sects of Christianity may attack homosexuals. Some anti-Christians will attack anti-homosexuality, arguing that homosexuality is natural, etc. That's fine and all, but that doesn't mean that a God/several Gods doesn't exist. Same goes for evolution, omnipotence/omnibenevolence, etc. Nor would ad hominem attacks on Muslim clerics or Hindu practices disprove God.
I'd actually like to see a good religious discussion thread somewhere. IMO, it's a very good philosophical argument. But there's not really much to argue. In the end it sort of boils down to either:
- I don't believe in God(s) because there's no reason to.
- I believe in God(s), this is the kind of God(s) I believe in, and some personal stuff that I can't prove.
And then some more attacks on anyone who makes any kind of stance.
Personally, I dislike a few people who claim to be atheists because they're so intolerant of religion. I don't agree with some parts of Christianity, but I don't go out and tell them that Jesus never existed or that their book was false. Atheists like to argue that they don't like people telling them that they'd go to hell, but an atheist going around verbally slapping theists in the face is just as bad.
Religion in itself is harmless; it's intolerance, blindly following harmful aspects, and forcing religion upon others that causes harm.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 08:07:27 am
Post by: freeformschooler on December 05, 2010, 08:49:38 am
Do you consider a parent raising a child to become a member of the same religion as them an act of "forcing religion upon others"?
It depends. If, at any point in their lives, the child decides for themselves against what they were raised to be, it can go two ways. If the parents forbid it, they are forcing their religion upon them. If they don't, then that's probably okay.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 08:56:40 am
Post by: Tellemurius on December 05, 2010, 09:01:51 am
So you see no problem with telling a child what to believe, as long as it may magically separate itself from its upbringing at some later point?thats what parents do genius, they lie to your ass making it easy for them until you discover the truth then they have a little pow-wow. remember, THE CAKE ISN'T REAL.
Post by: Mephisto on December 05, 2010, 10:37:46 am
So you see no problem with telling a child what to believe, as long as it may magically separate itself from its upbringing at some later point?
It's no big feat. It happens all the time.
Anyway, a topic for discussion if you (not you specifically to Khan, but to the thread in general) wish: lady at my university says she's Jewish and Christian because those are the only two religions that teach their followers to be nice to one another. I already know she's full of crap, but what do you think?
Post by: Sowelu on December 05, 2010, 11:34:01 am
I do believe in a creator though. Mostly because, seriously...Math? Physics? That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five. Are they anything remotely like a human, probably not. Could they just be a force of nature? Okay, probably. But the universe is such that life is possible, which is just mind-blowing. Maybe there's the Great and Holy RNG up there, churning all on its lonesome, the one and only divine power with its only mission to re-roll universes until it gets one containing life. Well, fine, then I think that RNG is worthy of respect of its existence, even if not worthy of worship itself.
I guess my arguments are kind of like evolutionists', really:
1) The universe is incredibly complicated, driven by a huge number of variables.
2) The conditions required for life are an incredibly narrow band, too small for chance.
3) If not by chance, then by an intelligently guided hand.
4) Therefore: A higher power must have set those initial variables.
And yes...by the Anthropic Principle, it's a given that any person in any universe would look around and say "How strange and unlikely that this universe, by chance, is perfect to allow our existence!" If it wasn't, they wouldn't exist at all. But the Anthropic Principle is only a reminder about sampling bias. It doesn't explain where it all came from in the first place.
And yeah I used to be a major theoretical astrophysics (and sci-fi) nerd, so I've heard that this universe could just be a descendant of some prior universe. But universes have to come from somewhere. Life came from a convenient mix of chemicals and probably a convenient lightning strike, that's fine, the ingredients were all there. But where the hell do you get the ingredients for a brand new universe? Until physics makes some huge new strides, my answer is going to have to be Outside, or Backstage, or *Above*. With the implication that there's some divine-level critters wherever universes come from. It makes sense that there would be one Source, and it makes the most sense if it was intelligent.
Honestly, trying to figure out the rules here is like trying to work out evolution from a single generation (single universe). It's really goddamn hard, and you don't get any hints; you just need to be really really good at quantum physics or whatever. I guess I can come up with some falsifiability here, though. If quantum mechanics proves that it's possible to kick off a big-bang just like ours, from outside of space-time, with the correct random parameters...well then, there is not a need for any Prime Mover, and I admit defeat. This is possible in my lifetime! Anything less--anything that can only be created from an existing universe, say--and God is still up in the air, the only other explanation.
Hey, crazy shit you pull out of your ass turns out to be true sometimes. Witness the cosmological constant.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 11:46:36 am
Anyway, a topic for discussion if you (not you specifically to Khan, but to the thread in general) wish: lady at my university says she's Jewish and Christian because those are the only two religions that teach their followers to be nice to one another. I already know she's full of crap, but what do you think?
Welllllllllllllllllll... First: I do believe that it is impossible to be both Jewish and Christian, despite the fact it is the same god there is some huge differences, the one that springs to mind is the fact that a Christian would be doing the worst sin ever from a Jewish stand point.
Second: lol wut? Out of thousands of religion in the world she thinks only two tell each other to be nice? Since most religions started as a social tool (most likely, I don't know, maybe.) I bet that there is not one religion that does not have some provision for being nice to other.
Post by: Heron TSG on December 05, 2010, 11:47:45 am
1. The Moon will one day crash into Earth, possibly killing everyone.
2. The Earth will one day crash into the Sun, definitely killing everyone.
3. The Sun will expand into a red giant, definitely killing everyone.
4. Supervolcanos, of which we have many, are known to cause mass extinctions.
5. There are no other places to live within easy distance of Earth, so we are limited in how far we can expand. (for now.)
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 11:50:00 am
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 05, 2010, 11:50:06 am
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 11:51:48 am
amidoingitrite?
Post by: Dakk on December 05, 2010, 11:55:18 am
6. The Andromeda galaxy will eat the Milky Way.
Thats so far away that there's a good chance we'll have gone poof by them, either that or reached technological singularity and found a way to survive.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 05, 2010, 11:57:09 am
Post by: Sowelu on December 05, 2010, 12:04:40 pm
Existential issues are a way bigger deal than whether we get hit by a moon after a couple billion years. Silly. I'm sure in a few million years we can make it to another star, anyway, either that or blow ourselves up. And I'm sure we're not the only life in the universe besides, because that would be even more silly.
Nah, the universe just has very very very narrow parameters for supporting life at all. Nobody's this lucky. Flip a coin ten times and have it come up heads each time, and you're having a pretty good day. Flip it a thousand times and have it come up heads each time...well, something's fishy. The fact that we can exist means that something's real fishy in our favor.
Post by: Phmcw on December 05, 2010, 12:21:55 pm
You now, some poeple won the jackpot, but if you play, your chances to win are neglectible.
And you're simply being guilible if you think that our exobiological model are somewhat reliable.
So you don't know if our existance is likely or not.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 12:24:55 pm
It's no big feat. It happens all the time.Not often enough.
Anyway, a topic for discussion if you (not you specifically to Khan, but to the thread in general) wish: lady at my university says she's Jewish and Christian because those are the only two religions that teach their followers to be nice to one another. I already know she's full of crap, but what do you think?I think it's quite poor to require religion in order to be nice...also, to be nice to one another among the faith? That's easy. Try being nice to someone who believes differently. I know I've given up on that.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 05, 2010, 12:29:18 pm
You say that this universe is perfect for human life, but there are a few flaws with that.The Moon's orbit is decaying away from Earth.
1. The Moon will one day crash into Earth, possibly killing everyone.
Quote
2. The Earth will one day crash into the Sun, definitely killing everyone.Current projections say that the Earth will physically survive the Sun's lifecycle, although not with life.
Quote
3. The Sun will expand into a red giant, definitely killing everyone.That said, this will be several billion years from now, and if we can't create a method of saving Earth by then then we probably deserve what we get.
Quote
4. Supervolcanos, of which we have many, are known to cause mass extinctions.Humanity has been through more than one Supervolcanic event, and that was without civilization or technology.
Quote
5. There are no other places to live within easy distance of Earth, so we are limited in how far we can expand. (for now.)Oh, we have vez of making you habitable.
However, Earth is still a crazy geological powder-keg covered in lifeforms very unfavorable for human life. It says somthing about us that, with the comparatively abysmall disease resistance of humans and existance of human-preying microorganisms, that we still managed to take over the whole planet and are now extermanating said organisms.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 12:33:25 pm
I know I've given up on that.
We know.
Post by: Andir on December 05, 2010, 12:51:24 pm
I do believe in a creator though. Mostly because, seriously...Math? Physics? That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five.To me that sounds self-destructive (self-deprecating?). To think that humans could not come up with such concepts and that they were created by something divine and handed down. Why do you "hate" humanity so much to think that we could not do such feats without "divine inspiration"?
Post by: Dakk on December 05, 2010, 12:56:27 pm
It will almost certainly happen before the sun actively kills us all.
Are you absolutely sure? I'm pretty sure all astronomers and every documentary ever mentioned the event of the two galaxies colliding happening around a number of years that falls into the "90 zeros" tier. The sun will mostly likely go batshit before that.
Post by: Sowelu on December 05, 2010, 01:06:14 pm
I do believe in a creator though. Mostly because, seriously...Math? Physics? That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five.To me that sounds self-destructive (self-deprecating?). To think that humans could not come up with such concepts and that they were created by something divine and handed down. Why do you "hate" humanity so much to think that we could not do such feats without "divine inspiration"?
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that God came to our mathematicians in a blinding flash of inspiration. I'm saying that the very existence of all the crazy shit we have is totally awesome. Euler's Identity for one. The wonderful thing about math is that it's a universal language--it reveals truths inherent to the universe, things that are true whether we discover them or not. And some of those truths are so whacked-out crazy awesome that, well, they're like works of art. Literal works of art.
Post by: Cthulhu on December 05, 2010, 01:44:57 pm
It's no big feat. It happens all the time.Not often enough.Anyway, a topic for discussion if you (not you specifically to Khan, but to the thread in general) wish: lady at my university says she's Jewish and Christian because those are the only two religions that teach their followers to be nice to one another. I already know she's full of crap, but what do you think?I think it's quite poor to require religion in order to be nice...also, to be nice to one another among the faith? That's easy. Try being nice to someone who believes differently. I know I've given up on that.
Aren't you the same guy that flew into the Religion Survey thread, tossed out that ridiculous "Sup americunts" post, and then flew off?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 01:51:23 pm
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that God came to our mathematicians in a blinding flash of inspiration. I'm saying that the very existence of all the crazy shit we have is totally awesome. Euler's Identity for one. The wonderful thing about math is that it's a universal language--it reveals truths inherent to the universe, things that are true whether we discover them or not. And some of those truths are so whacked-out crazy awesome that, well, they're like works of art. Literal works of art.So...because to our monkey brains, something seems unusually elegant, it must be because some divine agent thought of it? Rather than, you know, things just happening to be that way?
Post by: Shinziril on December 05, 2010, 01:57:12 pm
I'm going to invoke "let's agree to agree" here.
Post by: Heron TSG on December 05, 2010, 02:14:52 pm
Nobody's this lucky. Flip a coin ten times and have it come up heads each time, and you're having a pretty good day. Flip it a thousand times and have it come up heads each time...well, something's fishy. The fact that we can exist means that something's real fishy in our favor.For all we know, the 'Big Crunch' and 'Big Bang' have occurred numerous times. Perhaps a billion times. It's impossible to count how many times the universe has rolled low before hitting a natural twenty.
Err... how? The moon's tangential velocity is slowing and the Earth's gravity remains the same.1. The Moon will one day crash into Earth, possibly killing everyone.The Moon's orbit is decaying away from Earth.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 05, 2010, 02:18:39 pm
Like this. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html)Err... how? The moon's tangential velocity is slowing and the Earth's gravity remains the same.1. The Moon will one day crash into Earth, possibly killing everyone.The Moon's orbit is decaying away from Earth.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 02:19:23 pm
For all we know, the 'Big Crunch' and 'Big Bang' have occurred numerous times. Perhaps a billion times. It's impossible to count how many times the universe has rolled low before hitting a natural twenty.Wouldn't a billion time be... a bit low?
Err... how? The moon's tangential velocity is slowing and the Earth's gravity remains the same.
I mean, nothing says anything had to start, I find it much more likely that it has already done it infinite time. Unless we know that has not happened or something.
Of course that does not really defeat what he is say, I don't think math is going to change just because we go though a universe cycle.
Post by: Dakk on December 05, 2010, 02:23:33 pm
Err... how? The moon's tangential velocity is slowing and the Earth's gravity remains the same.1. The Moon will one day crash into Earth, possibly killing everyone.The Moon's orbit is decaying away from Earth.
[/quote]
The fact its getting farther from earth is exactly the cause of why its orbit is getting slower. If it were closer it'd be getting faster.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 02:27:10 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 05, 2010, 02:28:23 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 05, 2010, 02:29:39 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 02:31:24 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 02:35:33 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on December 05, 2010, 02:36:29 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2010, 03:05:19 pm
I guess my arguments are kind of like evolutionists', really:I have a serious, serious issue with number 3. And the end of number two.
1) The universe is incredibly complicated, driven by a huge number of variables.
2) The conditions required for life are an incredibly narrow band, too small for chance.
3) If not by chance, then by an intelligently guided hand.
4) Therefore: A higher power must have set those initial variables.
There's no such thing as "too small for chance". Just ask a lottery winner.
And there's other options than intelligence even if it can't be by chance. How about, say, an infinite number of parallel universes, each with slightly different fundamental variables?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 03:09:48 pm
Post by: MC Dirty on December 05, 2010, 03:22:44 pm
Math doesn't tell us anything about any "inherent truths". Mathematics is a model created to best describe intuitive methods of counting, calculating and measuring. That is all. If those intuitive methods would be different, mathematics would be different; the axioms and definitions we have would be different. It doesn't tell us about anything we haven't discovered. We just assume it does and it works most of the time, so we just roll with it.I do believe in a creator though. Mostly because, seriously...Math? Physics? That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five.To me that sounds self-destructive (self-deprecating?). To think that humans could not come up with such concepts and that they were created by something divine and handed down. Why do you "hate" humanity so much to think that we could not do such feats without "divine inspiration"?
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that God came to our mathematicians in a blinding flash of inspiration. I'm saying that the very existence of all the crazy shit we have is totally awesome. Euler's Identity for one. The wonderful thing about math is that it's a universal language--it reveals truths inherent to the universe, things that are true whether we discover them or not. And some of those truths are so whacked-out crazy awesome that, well, they're like works of art. Literal works of art.
Post by: Bauglir on December 05, 2010, 03:31:26 pm
Math doesn't tell us anything about any "inherent truths". Mathematics is a model created to best describe intuitive methods of counting, calculating and measuring. That is all. If those intuitive methods would be different, mathematics would be different; the axioms and definitions we have would be different. It doesn't tell us about anything we haven't discovered. We just assume it does and it works most of the time, so we just roll with it.I do believe in a creator though. Mostly because, seriously...Math? Physics? That is AWESOME, and I firmly believe that there is Someone out there who needs a high-five.To me that sounds self-destructive (self-deprecating?). To think that humans could not come up with such concepts and that they were created by something divine and handed down. Why do you "hate" humanity so much to think that we could not do such feats without "divine inspiration"?
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that God came to our mathematicians in a blinding flash of inspiration. I'm saying that the very existence of all the crazy shit we have is totally awesome. Euler's Identity for one. The wonderful thing about math is that it's a universal language--it reveals truths inherent to the universe, things that are true whether we discover them or not. And some of those truths are so whacked-out crazy awesome that, well, they're like works of art. Literal works of art.
Empiricism: It's pretty great.
--------------------
@Others Also, cut it out with the "didn't you get muted" etc. stuff, this topic gets heated enough without random bashing thrown in.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 03:34:29 pm
Post by: MC Dirty on December 05, 2010, 03:49:45 pm
I didn't really consider myself bashed. Can't we just assume that whenever someone doesn't actively announce their insulted-ness, any insults previously flung were good-natured?I feel insulted.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: fqllve on December 05, 2010, 03:54:39 pm
And there's other options than intelligence even if it can't be by chance. How about, say, an infinite number of parallel universes, each with slightly different fundamental variables?
I think design and not-design(chance) are basically the only options we have there. With an infinite number of parallel universes everything still just boils down to chance. A billion different universes might have tried and failed before we ever got our chance at existence.
Or what's an even weirder thought, every universe might be almost certain to contain life.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2010, 03:58:17 pm
It's like... if you have a million boxes, and you teleport into one at random. What's the chance that the box you're in is the one you teleported into?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 04:07:11 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 05, 2010, 04:10:27 pm
If you have an infinite number of universes flitting in and out of existence any possible iteration is going to happen eventually. The confluence of factors is something with a probability. If you pick a universe at random there's some chance that it will be that one. But the probability that the universe we appear in is the one that supports our life is 100%.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 04:22:00 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 05, 2010, 04:24:39 pm
It's just "The universe we're in is the universe where we can exist" (or one of the universes where we can exist).
Basically, if you have infinity tries, even the super unlikely can happen.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 05, 2010, 04:25:37 pm
Stop it. Your 1=1x1 is hurting my head.
Post by: Argembarger on December 05, 2010, 04:35:16 pm
Embrace the 96-hour day. It's more harmonious with nature.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on December 05, 2010, 05:04:01 pm
If you have an infinite number of universes flitting in and out of existence any possible iteration is going to happen instantly, an infinite number of times.Your conception of infinite is too small.
Post by: MC Dirty on December 05, 2010, 05:06:47 pm
Probably depends on whether it's numerable or innumerable.If you have an infinite number of universes flitting in and out of existence any possible iteration is going to happen instantly, an infinite number of times.Your conception of infinite is too small.
Don't expect to get away with comments about "infinity" without a math student interfering. :P
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 06, 2010, 01:39:40 am
That german guy with the beans, right?
peas
Post by: Renault on December 06, 2010, 02:22:36 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 05:49:40 am
I stand corrected.That german guy with the beans, right?
peas
Post by: MC Dirty on December 06, 2010, 07:35:32 am
It sounds like this thread is quickly going all time-cube on us. I think we should be able to set aside the probability-of-one-infinity thing because, lets face it, its sort of silly.How is it silly? I don't quite see your point.´
Post by: Siquo on December 06, 2010, 07:57:38 am
I find it funny that the concept of a "primal mover" (in whatever shape or form) is actually countered by the concept of an infinite amount of universes combined with anthropocentrism, for which there is an equal amount of scientific proof (string theory has no proof (yet)). I do not know which is actually more far-fetched.
Of course, they could still both be true.
I'm with Sowelu on a number of points, except for his arguments. I don't think there's any argument that can prove or disprove the existence of (a) God.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 08:07:13 am
Post by: Siquo on December 06, 2010, 08:18:43 am
Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.
Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".
Post by: Andir on December 06, 2010, 08:26:09 am
Not to escape scientific scrutiny... to escape inquiry. Gods were created to both explain phenomenon and, in part, to control people. When the Kings found out that this God person was feared more than they were... they had to use this to their advantage! It also may be that people would naturally be afraid of something that could make or unmake all that is in a snap of the finger. Siding with that thing was natural survival.Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.
Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".
Post by: Siquo on December 06, 2010, 09:00:04 am
Not to escape scientific scrutiny... to escape inquiry. Gods were created to both explain phenomenon and, in part, to control people.Perhaps. Using gods to explain phenomena and control people (or, in a more positive way, increase social cohesion) might be a spin-off from the original concept. Money can be used to control people but it wasn't specifically created for that purpose.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 12:59:35 pm
I find it funny that the concept of a "primal mover" (in whatever shape or form) is actually countered by the concept of an infinite amount of universes combined with anthropocentrism, for which there is an equal amount of scientific proof (string theory has no proof (yet)). I do not know which is actually more far-fetched.No anthropecentrism. None at all.
Of course, they could still both be true.
All I'm saying is that the universe we're in is the universe we're in.
Kindof like "What is the chance that your sperm was the one that won the race?"
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 03:40:25 pm
Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.
Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".
The people who take the side of theism or agnosticism in modern-day debates always formulate their concept of god specifically so it becomes impossible to prove or disprove.
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 03:48:56 pm
Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.
Post by: Andir on December 06, 2010, 03:59:56 pm
And that's a problem why? I thought this was a philosophical discussion.It's hard to have a discussion with someone who changes the rules then sticks their fingers in their ears.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 04:53:37 pm
Arguments of fact are completely different from debates of philosophy or policy.Well, that's just your philosophy :P.
Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.Hmm?
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 05:08:13 pm
Me personally, I can be swayed by philosophical arguments. So I don't mind making them. In philosophy, provability and unprovability doesn't change my ability to be convinced.
Quantum mechanics (or other exotic physics) keeps telling us more and more about the nature of the universe, and about its origins. Scientists keep coming up with some VERY interesting theories about the start of the universe. If they nail them down securely enough, well, maybe it will let us explore the existence or nonexistence of stuff outside the universe. Is it possible for one universe to spawn other, entirely contained subuniverses? Maybe, and proving that it can or can't could conceivably tell us about what a creator could or must have done, or could tell us that a creator is strictly unnecessary. I can't predict what we'll find out or what it'll mean, only that I'm sure it will be very interesting. I mean...learning that the sun didn't revolve around the sun threw a wrench into religious cosmology, just think what the existence of other universes will do.Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.Hmm?
I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there". Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes. Or finding a physicalist explanation for consciousness.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 05:19:02 pm
The OP says 'cogent arguments to convince others'. That doesn't mean you need physical proof...unless your opponents won't be satisfied by anything less. Which is valid I guess, but I guess that people who need physical proof don't enjoy philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics...Noone's demanding absolute proof, but I feel you need at least evidence. Something that psychology, sociology and economics generally try to use.
Quantum mechanics (or other exotic physics) keeps telling us more and more about the nature of the universe, and about its origins. Scientists keep coming up with some VERY interesting theories about the start of the universe. If they nail them down securely enough, well, maybe it will let us explore the existence or nonexistence of stuff outside the universe. Is it possible for one universe to spawn other, entirely contained subuniverses? Maybe, and proving that it can or can't could conceivably tell us about what a creator could or must have done, or could tell us that a creator is strictly unnecessary. I can't predict what we'll find out or what it'll mean, only that I'm sure it will be very interesting. I mean...learning that the sun didn't revolve around the sun threw a wrench into religious cosmology, just think what the existence of other universes will do.Not much. As you say, it's impossible to disprove.
I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there". Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes.Well, you can find hidden messages in anything if you randomly shotgun enough. I mean, look at this:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 05:30:03 pm
Eh. I still consider existence to be not proof but evidence. Matter of opinion.The OP says 'cogent arguments to convince others'. That doesn't mean you need physical proof...unless your opponents won't be satisfied by anything less. Which is valid I guess, but I guess that people who need physical proof don't enjoy philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics...Noone's demanding absolute proof, but I feel you need at least evidence. Something that psychology, sociology and economics generally try to use.
Ooh, statistics is really nasty here actually. I'm going to dredge out that coin flip analogy again that I like so much.I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there". Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes.Well, you can find hidden messages in anything if you randomly shotgun enough. I mean, look at this:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
If your buddy bets you twenty bucks against your five bucks that if you flip a coin of your choice twice, it will come up heads both times...chances are that if he wins, it was a fair bet. The odds are only 1/4th, but the probability that 1) he wants to cheat you and 2) he has the power to cheat you are both miniscule. It was a fair bet, too.
If some shady guy on the street bets you twenty bucks against your twenty bucks that if he flips a choice of his choice twice, it will come up heads both times...chances are that if he wins, it was NOT a fair bet. Yes, the odds are the same, but the probabilities that 1) he wants to cheat you and 2) he has the power to cheat you are both very high. It wasn't a fair bet, either--it was way against his favor--which just makes it more likely that he knew he would win.
So, the probability of a coin flip coming up heads twice is pretty misleading. When you're looking for something VERY unlikely--much more unlikely than that link you gave--knowing the p-value is only part of the story. You have to compare "probability that this would happen at random" versus "probability that something is fishy", or in this case, "that Some higher power decided to put something there to screw with us". Unfortunately you can only ever guess at the second value! You can put that probability that a higher power decided to screw with you as an incredibly low value...like, really really infintesimal. But it MUST be nonzero. Nothing is ever zero. The odds of you being a brain in a jar are probably much less than ten to the minus one-hundred, but they're sure not zero. If we find something sufficiently weird--even if it is statistically possible, but really REALLY unlikely--there comes a point where you will have to accept it as evidence.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 05:38:45 pm
Eh. I still consider existence to be not proof but evidence. Matter of opinion.Well... not really. Unless you can provide a reason why it's more reasonable to assume that a deity appeared out of nowhere in the first place...
So, the probability of a coin flip coming up heads twice is pretty misleading. When you're looking for something VERY unlikely--much more unlikely than that link you gave--knowing the p-value is only part of the story. You have to compare "probability that this would happen at random" versus "probability that something is fishy", or in this case, "that Some higher power decided to put something there to screw with us". Unfortunately you can only ever guess at the second value! You can put that probability that a higher power decided to screw with you as an incredibly low value...like, really really infintesimal. But it MUST be nonzero. Nothing is ever zero. The odds of you being a brain in a jar are probably much less than ten to the minus one-hundred, but they're sure not zero. If we find something sufficiently weird--even if it is statistically possible, but really REALLY unlikely--there comes a point where you will have to accept it as evidence.I completely and utterly disagree.
For one thing, a deity that was spontaneously generated at the start of the universe with that idea in its head is at least as unlikely as whatever they supposedly planted in it.
Secondly, with all the billions of things you have to shotgun at, you'd expect at least one of them to give a staggeringly unlikely result.
Thirdly, there could easily be a mechanism explaining it. Wow, in a right angled triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is always true! It's a huge coincidence, right?
As a side note... would you count the fact that we have not found anything of this nature as evidence that a deity doesn't exist?
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 06:03:45 pm
Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.
Secondly, with all the billions of things you have to shotgun at, you'd expect at least one of them to give a staggeringly unlikely result.To answer that 'secondly': Depends. If we've got "billions" of things to shotgun at, and we find something that appears to be the product of an intelligence that has not a one-in-a-billion chance, but one-in-a-billion-billion-billion-billion chance, I still argue that that would be solid evidence.
Thirdly, there could easily be a mechanism explaining it. Wow, in a right angled triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is always true! It's a huge coincidence, right?
As a side note... would you count the fact that we have not found anything of this nature as evidence that a deity doesn't exist?
To answer that 'thirdly': Yes, finding the mechanisms that caused an incredibly unlikely result does defeat their use as evidence. However, I would argue that the very existence of some of these mechanisms are, themselves, evidence of a creator. I acknowledge that many, or even most, would disagree with me here. I assert that chaos is the status quo, and the order we observe is unusual. The fact that everything fits together so neatly inspires faith in me, and in some others. I'm not offended by others who assert that order is the natural status quo, though. I think that stuff like this is a very valid difference of opinion, but I've seen people get nudged closer to religion just by studying math.
To answer that side note: Yes. I do count the fact that we haven't found anything of that nature as evidence against the existence of a creator. I still feel that the evidence for is greater.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 06:13:43 pm
I'd say that all of "Universe appeared out of nowhere", "Prime mover appeared out of nowhere, created universe", and "Prime mover has always existed, created universe" are incredibly unlikely. "Universe has always existed" doesn't work; even if a neverending cycle of big bangs are possible, they had to start somewhere.Well, how do you know? Is there a good reason why nothing rather than something works better?
Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.
Or... you could try Antimatter, which means you can start with nothing, and which has now been properly examined (interestingly, this would mean the sum total of matter in the universe is still 0).
To answer that 'secondly': Depends. If we've got "billions" of things to shotgun at, and we find something that appears to be the product of an intelligence that has not a one-in-a-billion chance, but one-in-a-billion-billion-billion-billion chance, I still argue that that would be solid evidence.Hmm... unless this "product of intelligence" explicitly states there's a deity, though, I'd still be reluctant to take it as evidence of one. Otherwise it isn't telling us anything other than "there is some kind of mechanism behind this".
To answer that 'thirdly': Yes, finding the mechanisms that caused an incredibly unlikely result does defeat their use as evidence. However, I would argue that the very existence of some of these mechanisms are, themselves, evidence of a creator. I acknowledge that many, or even most, would disagree with me here. I assert that chaos is the status quo, and the order we observe is unusual. The fact that everything fits together so neatly inspires faith in me, and in some others. I'm not offended by others who assert that order is the natural status quo, though. I think that stuff like this is a very valid difference of opinion, but I've seen people get nudged closer to religion just by studying math.I... don't think God would be able to change maths, in any case. It is what it is. 2+2 remains 4 no matter what way you spin it.
Such an argument is possibly more valid from a physics perspective, but if you look at, say, quantum mechanics, you'll see how horribly chaotic and unordered it is.
Post by: Siquo on December 06, 2010, 06:23:18 pm
Well... not really. Unless you can provide a reason why it's more reasonable to assume that a deity appeared out of nowhere in the first place...Now you're just being reasonable. There are good reasons to be unreasonable.
There is no scientific evidence that it exists. You seem to believe (note the word) that no evidence equals no existence. That's okay, but then it was going to be hard to convince you that America existed in the year 1200 if you lived in Europe, then.
Quote
The people who take the side of theism or agnosticism in modern-day debates always formulate their concept of god specifically so it becomes impossible to prove or disprove.
Quote
It's hard to have a discussion with someone who changes the rules then sticks their fingers in their ears.I believe these two are similar in meaning. Whose rules, and what rules? If hard evidence or proof is needed, it doesn't exist. God is probably beyond the scientific domain, and thus cannot be formulated as a disprovable scientific hypothesis. If those areas of debate scare you or confuse you, I invite you to join in and leave your limitations behind.
Or, try to make a disprovable scientific hypothesis about the existence of a multiverse. It's equally hard, and we'll just have to move the conversation beyond the basic level of "science".
My personal "proof of God in mathematics" is Eulers' identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). It is awesome.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 06, 2010, 06:26:51 pm
Now you're just being reasonable. There are good reasons to be unreasonable.You're kindof sawing off the branch under your feet there.
There is no scientific evidence that it exists. You seem to believe (note the word) that no evidence equals no existence. That's okay, but then it was going to be hard to convince you that America existed in the year 1200 if you lived in Europe, then.
I don't think that no evidence = no existence. I think that no evidence = disregard it as a possibility until there is evidence. Because... well, there are just too many possibilities with no evidence behind them to believe in them all. And yes, that applies to you to.
Incidentally, there's plenty of geological evidence of America existing in 1200.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 06:29:32 pm
There is no evidence for the existence of god. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of deluded humans.
Post by: Siquo on December 06, 2010, 06:52:41 pm
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of deluded humans.At least we can agree on one point ;)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 07:04:27 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 07:27:34 pm
Then again this is starting to derail, so maybe I should go make a new topic. MAGNETS HOW DO THEY WORK
Post by: Andir on December 06, 2010, 07:48:24 pm
I'd say that all of "Universe appeared out of nowhere", "Prime mover appeared out of nowhere, created universe", and "Prime mover has always existed, created universe" are incredibly unlikely. "Universe has always existed" doesn't work; even if a neverending cycle of big bangs are possible, they had to start somewhere.Wait. Wait. Wait... How does something not existing until it's created work where having always existed does not? The laws of conservation pretty much defy that train of thought. Do you think babies are just created and their mass is simply created by magic? IMO, the Earth, the Universe and everything was formed from mass/energy that existed for eternity and will continue to exist even after it's torn apart by some other source. It may not be in the same shape it is today, but it will eventually be recycled and used again.
Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.
I guess that's the difference between you and I. I fail to believe that all this had to be created (It actually boggles my mind that someone would think that all the mass in the universe was "created") and you fail to believe that it could have always just been here.
Post by: Micro102 on December 06, 2010, 07:48:57 pm
Would people give up the idea of god if we make everyone immortal?
And I too believe that the universe always existed. Just because human brains are unable to comprehend infinity doesn't mean it's false.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 07:50:26 pm
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 08:12:47 pm
1. The existence of anything rather than nothing does not make sense, as some poster explained.That's.....a bit insulting, wouldn't you say?
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!
I guess that's the difference between you and I. I fail to believe that all this had to be created (It actually boggles my mind that someone would think that all the mass in the universe was "created") and you fail to believe that it could have always just been here.Yeah, I think that's a pretty fair analysis. What was the initial state of the universe then? I mean, it's constantly in flux. This incarnation started with the Big Bang. Presumably there coulda been something before that, sure, maybe a cycle--but where was the starting point? I can't really argue that it's impossible to not have a starting point, but I'd like to hear you explain your take.
And seriously, Khan. "Prime Mover" is a completely different philosophical concept from "Christian God".
Post by: Andir on December 06, 2010, 08:38:18 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 06, 2010, 09:01:03 pm
That's.....a bit insulting, wouldn't you say?To whom? The one who actually do reason in a line not much dissimilar to that? Or those who are too comfortable with their preconceived notions of the world's workings to make uncomfortable accommodations to the unfortunate non-existence of god, using a roughly similar argument (usually replacing the 3. line with something along the lines of "therefore, a prime mover must exist")?
And seriously, Khan. "Prime Mover" is a completely different philosophical concept from "Christian God".Hardly. In most cases of discussion about the origin of the universe, the wish to justify one's belief in the christian god leads firstly to the pseudo-arguments for the existence of a prime mover, and then to the justification of christian or quasi-christian belief. Deism and the like stem from the same source, albeit with a lesser degree of religious detail.
Post by: Mephisto on December 06, 2010, 09:03:06 pm
My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.) With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start. My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space. Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something. Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.
Back in '06, the pope got Stephen Hawking to come over for a chit chat. Said he believed in evolution, the big bang, and all that jazz. Paraphrasing, he said that his god likes explosions and created a big ol' ball of junk, threw it out into space, and watched it explode. Billions of years of natural processes later and *poof*, here we are. That's probably the closest viewpoint to the one I had when I considered myself to be a Christian.
Not that I believe it. The part about a god creating it, that is. The big bang? Sure, many geniuses know more about the matter than I.
Post by: Bauglir on December 06, 2010, 09:04:10 pm
My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.) With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start. My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space. Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something. Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.
Actually we know why we can see only a certain distance out. It's the speed of light. Any further than the observable universe, and it would have taken light longer than the current age of the universe to travel to Earth from its source.
Post by: Sowelu on December 06, 2010, 09:10:57 pm
The tone, specifically.1. The existence of anything rather than nothing does not make sense, as some poster explained.
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!That's.....a bit insulting, wouldn't you say?To whom? The one who actually do reason in a line not much dissimilar to that? Or those who are too comfortable with their preconceived notions of the world's workings to make uncomfortable accommodations to the unfortunate non-existence of god, using a roughly similar argument (usually replacing the 3. line with something along the lines of "therefore, a prime mover must exist")?
EDIT: Also, given points 1 and 2... I'm pretty curious what you'd suggest for 3, if not a prime mover, and why.
Post by: Andir on December 06, 2010, 09:15:12 pm
Yeah yeah... I was taught that in school, and taught that we can see to the beginning of the universe because of it. Personal feeling though is that light can travel billions of years and it may be losing enough energy or being refracted out of our view... maybe even by the energy that is pushing us all through space. I covered all this in the other thread and I don't feel like going over it all again.My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.) With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start. My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space. Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something. Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.
Actually we know why we can see only a certain distance out. It's the speed of light. Any further than the observable universe, and it would have taken light longer than the current age of the universe to travel to Earth from its source.
Post by: MC Dirty on December 06, 2010, 11:36:05 pm
Euler's identity is a mathematical concept. Mathematics doesn't come from anywhere, is not a gift given to us by a prime mover. It's an abstract concept in and of itself, based on the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Mathematics is accurate. Real life is not.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 05:10:41 am
Shrugging Khan, please stop it. If you can't approach a different view from yours with respect, then just don't approach it at all.
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 07, 2010, 05:49:17 am
Yeah yeah... I was taught that in school, and taught that we can see to the beginning of the universe because of it. Personal feeling though is that light can travel billions of years and it may be losing enough energy or being refracted out of our view... maybe even by the energy that is pushing us all through space. I covered all this in the other thread and I don't feel like going over it all again.My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.) With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start. My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space. Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something. Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.
Actually we know why we can see only a certain distance out. It's the speed of light. Any further than the observable universe, and it would have taken light longer than the current age of the universe to travel to Earth from its source.
Uh, can you link to your posts there? I don't understand why you don't like the current theory; it works fine for physicists and most other people.
Post by: Andir on December 07, 2010, 11:36:22 am
Because they assume that light is infinite... it never loses energy over billions of years of travel... because we can't test otherwise. This idea that light is forever infinite is the basis that our universe is only so big.Yeah yeah... I was taught that in school, and taught that we can see to the beginning of the universe because of it. Personal feeling though is that light can travel billions of years and it may be losing enough energy or being refracted out of our view... maybe even by the energy that is pushing us all through space. I covered all this in the other thread and I don't feel like going over it all again.My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.) With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start. My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space. Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something. Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.
Actually we know why we can see only a certain distance out. It's the speed of light. Any further than the observable universe, and it would have taken light longer than the current age of the universe to travel to Earth from its source.
Uh, can you link to your posts there? I don't understand why you don't like the current theory; it works fine for physicists and most other people.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 11:45:37 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 07, 2010, 02:06:36 pm
Spoiler: not to derail any further (click to show/hide)
Post by: Andir on December 07, 2010, 03:04:50 pm
Anyway. By all measure people use light to determine the age of our universe... how far we can see either with the aid of tools or our bare naked eyes. We are in another one of those scenarios where: "You look out on the horizon and see no other land. Therefore it must not exist and obviously since we see no roundness our world must be flat." Without knowing absolutely that light energy doesn't exponentially dissipate (or shift out of our measurable spectrum?) after it red shifts. And I believe I understand the concept that the expanding universe would sort of "pull apart" the light that was traveling to us... but that's part of what I'm talking about. What if that light is being pulled so much that it ceases to be visible. We can't know if that's certain. We can only make guesses based on what we can observe. I guess it all boils down to one idea that I find it extremely arrogant. Thinking that we are (for all intents) near/in the center of our known universe and when we look in all directions and see billions of light years and then see no more, we assume that is it and there is no more.
Post by: Phmcw on December 07, 2010, 03:34:06 pm
It's good to have a critical mind, but you need to know the theory you're discussing, else it's useless.
And no one said that the universe doesn't expand farther than where we can see.
The end of the observable universe is the name of this limit.
So, your point is obvious, and already taken into account.
Post by: Andir on December 07, 2010, 05:01:23 pm
So, your point is obvious, and already taken into account.It's not obvious to some... because I keep hearing it brought up when people talk about "God" creating all of this and the "Big Bang" being the beginning of all and therefore proof of god(s). This is where that "derail" came from.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 05:19:42 pm
Andir, it's not a topic on atheism you need right now, but a course on astrophysics.No, he really has a point. The big bang is only surmised from the speed at which galaxies seem to move away from us and eachother. It's a bit shaky at best. However, if the universe is infinite in size and has been around infinitely, the sky would be intensely bright instead of black with a star here and there. Unless photons do decay.
It's good to have a critical mind, but you need to know the theory you're discussing, else it's useless.
However, time dilation makes photons timeless (the closer to the speed of light you get, the slower your time frame becomes, hence: photons that actually travel at the speed of light do not experience time), so even if they had a half-life of a second, they'd never decay anyway.
... Except that light slows down in a medium. Damn. Ok, forget the last part, but still, who knows? ;)
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 05:20:59 pm
Post by: Phmcw on December 07, 2010, 05:28:59 pm
Andir, it's not a topic on atheism you need right now, but a course on astrophysics.No, he really has a point. The big bang is only surmised from the speed at which galaxies seem to move away from us and eachother. It's a bit shaky at best. However, if the universe is infinite in size and has been around infinitely, the sky would be intensely bright instead of black with a star here and there. Unless photons do decay.
It's good to have a critical mind, but you need to know the theory you're discussing, else it's useless.
However, time dilation makes photons timeless (the closer to the speed of light you get, the slower your time frame becomes, hence: photons that actually travel at the speed of light do not experience time), so even if they had a half-life of a second, they'd never decay anyway.
... Except that light slows down in a medium. Damn. Ok, forget the last part, but still, who knows? ;)
No, no, no friggin' no!
The big bang theory doesn't come solely from the evidence that the universe is expending. There is a lot of other evidence as well as theoretical hint that none of you could possibly understand (and actually, I can't either, no matter how hard I try.)
The problem is that your mistake "explanation for the public" from "how the theory is actually explained".
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 05:34:50 pm
Post by: Andir on December 07, 2010, 05:45:37 pm
We've got a pretty darn good idea of how old the universe is from the amount of elements present in it. :x There have been three generations of stars so far, we're in the third one. The first one is long gone and didn't last for long anyway. It took three generations to make these heavy metals, but the second generation--with much lower metallicity--is still around. The numbers add up in a pretty darn clear and accurate fashion, there. Yes, the age of the universe is known, and it's faaaaar from infinite.Er... are you talking about elements as in periodic table elements? Actually, you lost me.
Post by: Renault on December 07, 2010, 05:52:30 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 05:59:13 pm
I think the scientific model says "Test the hypothesis" rather than "Who knows?" at the end.Who cares? :)
The big bang theory doesn't come solely from the evidence that the universe is expending.Ah, it must be getting tired ;) But yeah, it did. We did find other evidence in that direction later, though (as the aforementioned stellar nucleosynthesis, and remember, stars that create heavy metals are called "rock-stars" (although they create anything heavier than beryllium, not just metals)), but the expansion was the trigger. If we now remove expansion from the equation, how much of the theory will be left standing? You're going to have a hard time defending it, if new evidence shows that the universe isn't expanding at all.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 06:00:40 pm
Anyone who cares about what the universe actually is.I think the scientific model says "Test the hypothesis" rather than "Who knows?" at the end.Who cares? :)
if new evidence shows that the universe isn't expanding at all.Just to say this is roughly akin to new evidence showing that people with blond hair don't actually exist.
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 06:04:03 pm
It floated around and formed stars. With no heavy elements, you only got these big honking massive stars. They collapsed pretty fast (a few hundred million years?), and when they collapsed, they triggered fusion and turned a lot of their elements into more interesting things. If I remember right, that first wave was enough to give us elements up to iron or so.
Stars that formed using those new metals lasted a while longer, and plenty are still around today (if old). There's been enough time for them to collapse and cause more fusion, though, and when their higher metals fused, you get...well, everything we have today. Our star and planets are made from the output of this second generation of stars.
The physical laws concerning how long stars survive, what materials they're made of, what mass they would have, and what they would make when they fuse are fairly well established.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 06:11:46 pm
Anyone who cares about what the universe actually is.And I believe that science can teach us lots of things, but will never be able to tell us what the universe really is.
Quote
Just to say this is roughly akin to new evidence showing that people with blond hair don't actually exist.Hypothetical evidence. I'm just saying the theory kind of hinges on that one observation.
I'm just a sucker for crackpot theories and reasoning how they might be true :)
Post by: Andir on December 07, 2010, 06:12:11 pm
After the Big Bang, the universe was pretty much hydrogen and helium and not much else. (We have a lot of ways of knowing this; unless you want to spend some time on Wikipedia, you'll have to take my word for it.)But you are giving the age of stars we know of... not the universe. (I guess my problem comes from the fact that I define the universe as everything... I realize there are people that define it as everything we can see. Maybe I should start using another term for it. Planet > Solar System > Galaxy > Universe > Multiverse?)
It floated around and formed stars. With no heavy elements, you only got these big honking massive stars. They collapsed pretty fast (a few hundred million years?), and when they collapsed, they triggered fusion and turned a lot of their elements into more interesting things. If I remember right, that first wave was enough to give us elements up to iron or so.
Stars that formed using those new metals lasted a while longer, and plenty are still around today (if old). There's been enough time for them to collapse and cause more fusion, though, and when their higher metals fused, you get...well, everything we have today. Our star and planets are made from the output of this second generation of stars.
The physical laws concerning how long stars survive, what materials they're made of, what mass they would have, and what they would make when they fuse are fairly well established.
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 06:14:43 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 06:16:16 pm
And I believe that science can teach us lots of things, but will never be able to tell us what the universe really is.Just randomly putting out crackpot hypotheses and not bothering to check any of them will?
Hypothetical evidence. I'm just saying the theory kind of hinges on that one observation.Ok, yeah... like hypothetical evidence that blond people don't exist.
It just isn't gonna happen.
Post by: wurli on December 07, 2010, 06:29:16 pm
I mean, science and religion are so fundamentally different, that the whole discussion is a waste of time.
On one side you have something that BELIEVES to KNOW the truth already.
On the other you have theories that have to withstand new discoveries and can be falsified every minute, only to be replaced or altered by new ones.
I don't see a point in this discussion here. And you will never reach one.
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 06:34:50 pm
Can someone tell me what religion has to do with the big bang, the expansion of the universe or, even if he hasn't turned up yet, Darwin ?Huh. I think the point got muddled a few pages back, but we are still on topic more or less. Deism offers up the existence of a "Prime Mover", a creator who set things in motion and then got out of the way. It's not religion exactly, but it's still contrary to atheism. You also need to use science on both sides of the argument. This random origin of the universe stuff does have to do with the existence or nonexistence of a Prime Mover; namely, where the hell did the universe come from. That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.
I mean, science and religion are so fundamentally different, that the whole discussion is a waste of time.
On one side you have something that BELIEVES to KNOW the truth already.
On the other you have theories that have to withstand new discoveries and can be falsified every minute, only to be replaced or altered by new ones.
I don't see a point in this discussion here. And you will never reach one.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Post by: smjjames on December 07, 2010, 06:38:33 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 06:40:55 pm
Speaking of multiverses, astronomers have recently discovered signs in the cosmic background radiation (rings of cooler areas actually) shich indicates that somehow a previous universe made an imprint on ours when it was born. Although from the article it shows three rings, the cycle could very well be infinite with universes budding off of each other.Source? :/ By "Indicates" I'm guessing it actually means "Some scientist vaguely imagined and thought it would get his name in the papers"... Though it would be pretty cool.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 07, 2010, 06:41:02 pm
That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Post by: smjjames on December 07, 2010, 06:46:11 pm
Speaking of multiverses, astronomers have recently discovered signs in the cosmic background radiation (rings of cooler areas actually) shich indicates that somehow a previous universe made an imprint on ours when it was born. Although from the article it shows three rings, the cycle could very well be infinite with universes budding off of each other.Source? :/ By "Indicates" I'm guessing it actually means "Some scientist vaguely imagined and thought it would get his name in the papers"... Though it would be pretty cool.
Um right, source.
I saw it here (http://news.discovery.com/space/cosmic-rebirth-encoded-in-background-radiation.html) on the Discovery News site.
Even so, scientists aren't completely sure what it is yet.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 06:46:32 pm
Yeah, it probably has a greater chance since "check them" as you now mean it is probably part of the scientific method, which is a very narrow way of "checking" stuff. I think looking at the same stuff from different angles instead of accepting the popular view has a larger chance of gaining insights. It does in practice, why not in philosophy or religion?And I believe that science can teach us lots of things, but will never be able to tell us what the universe really is.Just randomly putting out crackpot hypotheses and not bothering to check any of them will?
Quote
Ok, yeah... like hypothetical evidence that blond people don't exist.That has been said so many times in history (and they were wrong), and is such an unscientific stance that you're probably on my side anyway ;)
It just isn't gonna happen.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 06:50:53 pm
Yeah, it probably has a greater chance since "check them" as you now mean it is probably part of the scientific method, which is a very narrow way of "checking" stuff. I think looking at the same stuff from different angles instead of accepting the popular view has a larger chance of gaining insights. It does in practice, why not in philosophy or religion?Performing a basic observation or experiment to see if something is true or not is not a "narrow way of checking stuff". Yes, you look at it from different angles... and then you test those different angles to see which ones actually have evidence for them.
That has been said so many times in history (and they were wrong), and is such an unscientific stance that you're probably on my side anyway ;)Hey, I'm not saying it's impossible. Just staggeringly unlikely and rather an odd thing to suggest.
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 06:53:05 pm
I disagree. Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point. The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point. In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Post by: wurli on December 07, 2010, 07:01:49 pm
I disagree. Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point. The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point. In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Isn't that exactly the same argument that has come up countless of times when science encountered a new frontier?
We can't explain it than some Undefinable Deity has to be involved.
We just don't know enough.
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 07:03:28 pm
Performing a basic observation or experiment to see if something is true or not is not a "narrow way of checking stuff". Yes, you look at it from different angles... and then you test those different angles to see which ones actually have evidence for them.In that case, could you do a basic observation or experiment to determine whether there was a Primal Mover or something else or even nothing before the universe?
And that's just one example, there's numerous others that are even less esoteric yet completely fall outside of the scope of science, that's what I mean by "narrow". It's like one is only weighing stuff and completely disregards the colour.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 07, 2010, 07:06:28 pm
Indeed, we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover. In fact, we don't have information about a Prime Mover, and I suspect that's because it's just made up. If God doesn't require a starting point, the Universe doesn't either. It doesn't get any special pleading in the name of being "magic", or whatever variable you prefer. I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, but I'm simply tired of hearing this same argument over and over again whenever we don't know somthing. The universe, our universe at least, does have an established starting point in time, but that doesn't prevent it from having generated out of nothingness. I don't personally think that's the case, however. Things get really strange when you start speculating about the begining of our universe. Time as we know it may not have existed. We know so very little on the subject, but jumping off of that to decide that a Prime Mover exists or that the universe always existed is simply not good science. We just don't know the truth yet. Deciding that it must be some supernatural force instead of searching for that truth will get us nowhere.I disagree. Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point. The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point. In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 07:07:48 pm
In that case, could you do a basic observation or experiment to determine whether there was a Primal Mover or something else or even nothing before the universe?Nope, throw it on the pile of unprovable guesses.
Post by: smjjames on December 07, 2010, 07:09:41 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 07:10:52 pm
Nope, throw it on the pile of unprovable guesses.What a small world :)
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 07:31:33 pm
We know so very little on the subject, but jumping off of that to decide that a Prime Mover exists or that the universe always existed is simply not good science. We just don't know the truth yet. Deciding that it must be some supernatural force instead of searching for that truth will get us nowhere.Ah, now there's the real root of hostility. You don't think that theists also care about searching for scientific truth. No, I'm quite interested in proving it one way or another, and you better believe I'm ALL for science. My belief in a God only strengthens my resolve to find scientific proof of its existence. And seriously, with the way science is going right now, yeah I do think we'll find more-definitive proof one way or another within the next couple centuries.
Sure not all theists are scientists. But are all atheists? It's a matter of belief, not a matter of policy. I've got my ideas of what I think we'll find, you've got yours, but we both agree that there's stuff that's worth looking for.
Post by: Bauglir on December 07, 2010, 07:37:28 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 07:43:21 pm
Personally, I have no belief in any kind of deity, but no belief that any of them cannot exist. I also attach no special significance to the existance or non existance of any of them, and as such, throw them on the pile of "unprovable stuff that isn't really relevant".
Post by: Sowelu on December 07, 2010, 07:48:31 pm
Post by: wurli on December 07, 2010, 08:15:16 pm
I'd like to say that being an atheist does not require you to believe that there is no God (although some do - see Strong Atheism).
Personally, I have no belief in any kind of deity, but no belief that any of them cannot exist. I also attach no special significance to the existance or non existance of any of them, and as such, throw them on the pile of "unprovable stuff that isn't really relevant".
The only problem is that strong believers are determined to "spread the word" and start to annoy the crap out of everyone. And that goes for theists and atheists.
And sadly, the more they scream the more attention they get. Best example is the discussion of ID.
Post by: Bauglir on December 07, 2010, 08:17:00 pm
I'd like to say that being an atheist does not require you to believe that there is no God (although some do - see Strong Atheism).
Personally, I have no belief in any kind of deity, but no belief that any of them cannot exist. I also attach no special significance to the existance or non existance of any of them, and as such, throw them on the pile of "unprovable stuff that isn't really relevant".
The only problem is that strong believers are determined to "spread the word" and start to annoy the crap out of everyone. And that goes for theists and atheists.
And sadly, the more they scream the more attention they get. Best example is the discussion of ID.
Hey, look, it doesn't matter what your belief system is, if you're going to be driving a car you really should have your license on you.[/misunderstanding]
Post by: Siquo on December 07, 2010, 08:18:20 pm
throw them on the pile of "unprovable stuff that isn't really relevant".But... then you must have a solid definition of provable (I don't have one so that pile contains... everything in my life). Care to share it? I promise I won't attack it, I just like to hear if it's new or not (and if it is, I might learn something).
Post by: Leafsnail on December 07, 2010, 08:25:03 pm
More like... you can never observe its effects. You can never perform any kind of test to see if it's there. You cannot make any predictions based on it.
To all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter, even if it exists. And, while not invalid, it's no more valid than any other thing that could exist through a devil's proof.
---
Or, to be in character for my avatar, THERE'S NO WAY SOMETHING THAT SCREWED UP CAN EXIST!
Post by: MC Dirty on December 08, 2010, 05:31:03 am
Hmm... maybe unprovable is the wrong word.Actually, I'm pretty sure science doesn't have a definition of "provable", either. In fact, the thing about widely accepted scientific theories is not that they have been proven. They haven't. The thing is that they can be falsified! No sensible scientist would claim that any theories are absolute truth. But these theories have been tested numerous times by people who actively tried to disprove them. It didn't work.
More like... you can never observe its effects. You can never perform any kind of test to see if it's there. You cannot make any predictions based on it.
To all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter, even if it exists. And, while not invalid, it's no more valid than any other thing that could exist through a devil's proof.
It can also be falsified that the universe started with a big bang and all evidence points towards it, but anything "beyond" or "before" (if such terms even make sense) is infalsifiable.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 05:58:52 am
but anything "beyond" or "before" (if such terms even make sense) is infalsifiable.I doubt that. We can't quite fathom it yet, but we can imagine finding it out SOMEday. Unless you want to move the goalposts of "universe" to include "whatever caused the Big Bang". If we somehow do discover some kind of weird multiversal effects (incredibly doubtful--but conceivable), then looking at when and where they impact us could tell us a lot. Does the Big Bang of a neighboring universe happen further into our timeline than our own Big Bang? If so, hot damn that speaks volumes about whatever medium our universe came from!
although that DOES get really really fuzzy about the definition of 'universe'. ugh. half the time 'universe' means 'everything in this bubble that was initiated by the Big Bang', but if Big Bangs cascade, is that multiple universes? is universe membership symmetric? if there's something outside the bounds of the bubble created by the Big Bang, is that still by definition part of the universe, or not? parallel universes seem like more of a 'bluh bluh other dimensions in the same universe' thing anyway...
For the record, I've been swayed away from the necessity of a Prime Mover. Still not sure what to make of math, though.
And what I never did bring up here but some may have noticed in other threads: I'm hella religious, but it's more of an 'I dig the ritual aspects' thing.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 08, 2010, 08:06:49 am
Unless some experimental evidence appears to support the idea, saying that a parallel universe "caused" something is equal to saying "god did it", and similarly rooted in one's religiousness.
Now, take the General Relativity theory - it makes observable predicions, is mathematically coherent, and as of yet not falsified. For as long as it stays so, it's only sensible to accept it's predictions regarding the beginning of the universe, that is: there was not "before" Big Bang, just as there is no "outside" universe - the BB was where(when?) space-time begun, and it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about cases external to it.
Sure, the GR has it's share of problems, but none of them substantial enough to prove it wrong. While some scepticism is(as always) welcome,
(this is where I finally make a subject-related statement:)
when it comes to cosmology, bringing parallel universe in from the area of thought experiments and wild imagination is not scientific, but religious.
*Feel free to prove me wrong by showing some evidence that I've missed appearing recently
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 09:48:49 am
the BB was where(when?) space-time begun,
Personally, I'd love for someone to put all the "evidence" of the BB together and tell me where it happened. If all this evidence is proof, someone should be able to nail down a general idea on where the epicenter of that event was. ;)
Post by: Phmcw on December 08, 2010, 10:00:26 am
The answer is everywhere at once. But back then that was a tiny, tiny place.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 08, 2010, 11:51:27 am
Check out this site:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php#questions
It explains the ideas behind current cosmologic model much better than I ever could.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 12:58:12 pm
Also, that site pretty much sucks. It sounds like someone trying to prove the Big Bang and they don't cite specific items for proof... they just say, "trust me!"
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 01:24:06 pm
If it's expanding out in all directions... there has to be a center.
Also, that site pretty much sucks. It sounds like someone trying to prove the Big Bang and they don't cite specific items for proof... they just say, "trust me!"
Except space is curved such that it probably has no edges. How do you define a center given that geometry? Any center you could refer to (say, by mapping space onto the surface of a sphere or whatever other shape is more appropriate) would be outside the 3-dimensional space we occupy anyway.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 01:47:42 pm
If it's outside the space we occupy, it occupies some other space. (All the hand waving I see on this topic is gross as well. There just isn't... but we have no proof.)If it's expanding out in all directions... there has to be a center.
Also, that site pretty much sucks. It sounds like someone trying to prove the Big Bang and they don't cite specific items for proof... they just say, "trust me!"
Except space is curved such that it probably has no edges. How do you define a center given that geometry? Any center you could refer to (say, by mapping space onto the surface of a sphere or whatever other shape is more appropriate) would be outside the 3-dimensional space we occupy anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying that our universe is like the atmosphere of Earth if the Earth were expanding where the Earth is a void of emptiness and space is also a void of empty? That's not the gist I got from reading this guy's stuff. He thinks that the dough of space is expanding, but all the raisins are staying in the same spot...
Quote
So if you are stuck inside the dough, and have no way to see anything except the dough, and if you are so far from the "edge" of the dough that you can't see it and it can't have any effect on you, then what difference do you notice between the point where you're at and the point that is actually at the geometric center of the entire blob of dough? The answer is that there is no difference, absolutely none. The concept of the "center of the universe" loses all meaning, so we don't even think about it.Because...
In fact, we can go a step further and imagine that the center isn't even there at all! How? Well, what if instead of just being really really big, the dough were infinitely big - that is, you could walk forever in a straight line and never reach a place where the dough ends. In that case, there really would be no center of the universe - the only way you can define the center is to mark out the edges and find the point that's equally in between all of them. So if the universe is infinitely big and has no edges, then it also has no center, not even on a theoretical level.
If I'm sitting on the edge of something that is expanding in all directions, there would be a bias in the movement in a direction to the left or right if looking along the tangent.
ie:
|edge2 target edge3|
|edge1 me center edge4|
The edges are "getting farther apart without moving" idea is total bunk... sorry, but it is. It relies on our basic understanding of light and makes massive assumptions that light gets red because the wave is being pulled apart, and not some other reason.
So If the edges are getting further apart from each other that means that the target and center are moving away from each other. That would also mean that the distance delta between target and center should be different than the distance delta between center and edge2 by twice as much. (ie: If A is moving away from B and B is moving away from C then A is moving away from C at the rate of both.) That's measurable and you can reverse that formula to get the center.
Now, the "experts" get all "religious" on me and say "The galaxies aren't moving so you can't measure that." I feel like I'm talking to a religious nut about God at this point. (You can't see him, he's everywhere!) He even goes into saying that if you could put a tape measure between galaxies the the tape would stretch simply because we are expanding... but still standing still.
I'm seriously beginning to think these physicist are nuts or just fudging the rules to make their ideas right.
Also, by his hand waving gesture that we are too small to even be able to measure the center makes me think the whole background radiation "proof" is not valid. That radiation could have been caused by an astronomical event somewhere nearby. (Like solar flares can be measured by their radio disturbance.) Heck... they could be picking up interference from a "galactic ray emitter" pointed straight at us.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 02:10:26 pm
...Er, sorry.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 02:11:44 pm
The only guess I can come up with to explain that is: The sun spits out light waves and because they are moving so fast they escape the pull of gravity. Gravity from the sun, planets, etc. is still pulling on the light distorting the wave. The further light travels the less gravity it encounters form it's origin, but, the more gravity it encounters in other gravitational fields causing it to "squash." There was one experiment that was supposed to prove that light bent around objects in space by measuring the time it took to see a planet come around the sun... and as far as I can tell, that just proved that light can be affected by gravity just as a planet, but since it's moving so fast it doesn't get refracted much. When it gets closer to another star it get's pulled more, thus adding to the distortion.
Source -L> - L > - L > Us
where L = light wave and -> is wavelength.
In other words, I think cosmological redshift is pretty much an attempt to downplay gravitational and doppler redshift effects or maybe it's a shim to try to fill the gap in what we might not yet know about light. I think people are placing too much emphasis on that being truth rather than theory.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 02:13:44 pm
Andir, I'm sorry, but you're contradicting a huge field here with very well-established theories and terminology.Yeah, and everything I read on this relies on a very small set of ideas.
It's like amplifying an amplified signal... eventually it's just noise.
Post by: Argembarger on December 08, 2010, 02:51:13 pm
That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the situation.
Prima: Where did your "universe" originate? How did it begin?
Secunda: We're not entirely sure, actually. We're still working out the details.
Prima: Ha, then it must be some sort of creator, God or prime mover!
Secunda: But where did your creator come from?
Prima: We're not entirely sure, actually. We're still working out the details.
Secunda: Well then.
Prima: Well then.
Secunda: Wanna go grab a bite to eat?
Prima: Sounds good.
and they all lived happily ever after until they died.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 03:02:45 pm
Post by: Phmcw on December 08, 2010, 04:20:21 pm
Andir, yeah, you're better that everyone that live for doing they research.
I gess your feeling that something is wrong is good enough, and it's not that you totally miss the point all the time.
Now let's just do a small though experiment : we're now dwarfs. What was there before worldgen. And how did he world began?
Thinking about the big bang is pretty much doing that, except as human.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 04:22:41 pm
The concept that our real universe might have quantized space and time is terrifying enough.
Post by: Glowcat on December 08, 2010, 04:24:41 pm
That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity: Why are we here at all? The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.
And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing. I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.
Please explain to me why the default state is 'Nothing'. Heck, explain to me what it even means for 'Nothing' to exist since I've yet to hear a real explanation for it that doesn't describe something such as empty space. The entire concept is flawed when applied as an imagined state prior to existence or as anything absolute since the state of nothing as we use the word is to describe a lack of something in existence.
If somebody is looking for food and say they've found nothing after searching they are specifically referring to a lack of food items within a real location -- not a lack of food items outside space and time where things don't exist in any sense comprehensible to the human mind. By claiming that there is a 'Nothing', and that it is the default state no less, Deists/Theists are greedily reaching for an explanation outside of any humanly possible understanding to explain their hypothesis... despite their own agent being dependent on pre-existing rules which would make itself necessary. In return they receive nonsense for their efforts. It is a label which "describes" a notion vague and ill-defined in any real sense. I could say that there was an infinite amount of nothing or no nothing between me and my keyboard and it would make just as much sense either way. Likewise, try using the concept of 0 outside of quantity terms and I guarantee you'll run into problems.
Whether there is or is not an agent outside space and causation, I cannot logically conclude that there ever was 'nothing'.
This leaves me with one possibility: somehow existence is necessary. It may not be understood but at least it doesn't disprove itself while explaining our current existence.
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 04:27:54 pm
Andir, I'm sorry, but you're contradicting a huge field here with very well-established theories and terminology. I respectfully request that you read a book ASAP before I have to bash my head on my desk so hard I knock myself out. This is completely aside from the theism/atheism thing: Saying "If it's expanding out in all directions... there has to be a center" shows as much understanding of science as saying "If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys". You're a complete layperson here, and some time with a good Stephen Hawking book (or whatever) would do you good. Just because it makes no sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. But yeah, keeping this up isn't doing any wonders for your credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about astrophysics and quite frankly it hurts to read.
...Er, sorry.
Hey, now. You're calmer in more recent posts, but still, while I agree with most of your point, try to be a bit more cordial 'bout it
Anyway! It's not that it's impossible to measure the stretching of the universe or anything, it is. But you have to keep in mind that it really is more like stretching than an expanding. I mean, I haven't read the links, so take what I say with a grain of salt; I'm going off of what I've read in physics classes and a few miscellaneous textbooks. I'm not a physics guy, so I may be missing stuff, but thinking of it like a pudding with raisins seems like an oversimplification, since if space itself is expanding, so too would be the raisins (but it would be less noticeable on the raisin's scale; 1.1 times magnification of something a centimeter long brings it to 1.1 centimeters which is rather a small difference, but it'd bring something 1 lightyear long to 1.1 lightyears, and .1 lightyear is pretty huge). I could be wrong, though.
Quote
I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying that our universe is like the atmosphere of Earth if the Earth were expanding where the Earth is a void of emptiness and space is also a void of empty?
Is basically it, although the void of emptiness isn't necessarily right, but it might as well be since accessing them would require some sort of 4-dimensional travel (spatial, not a time dimension, which would put the total up to 5 dimensions if you encounter time). Which is probably fictional.
Post by: Siquo on December 08, 2010, 05:11:01 pm
when it comes to cosmology, bringing parallel universe in from the area of thought experiments and wild imagination is not scientific, but religious.Damn, I was hoping someone would fall for that one ;)
Space isn't exactly "stretching", otherwise I would stretch with it and wouldn't notice anything. Right?
Glowcat: there's millions of uses for 0 beyond counting apples. And how is "something" not a lack of "nothing"? Wordplay, I know, but without the symmetry of opposites words become useless. If there's no darkness, how can we be sure that light exists, et cetera.
More like... you can never observe its effects. You can never perform any kind of test to see if it's there. You cannot make any predictions based on it.Any of those or all three? Because I can come up with something for each test, that would fail the other two:
1. God (I have experienced it's effects, but can't reproduce it and therefore can't predict it)
2. Virtual particles (virtual photon to electron-positron pair and back, for instance, can be tested for existence but it's observable effects are so minimal as to be non-existant, and the split/join can't be predicted). I cheat a little here but 1 and 2 are too intertwined to find something really exclusive.
3. Math (can't be "observed", can't test "if it's there" (since it's not "anywhere"), yet you can use it to make predictions)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 05:16:29 pm
I.: Fuck my tone. Delicate sensibilities are not relevant to debate.
1. The existence of anything rather than nothing does not make sense, as some poster explained.
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!
The tone.
EDIT: Also, given points 1 and 2... I'm pretty curious what you'd suggest for 3, if not a prime mover, and why.
II.: A prime mover is bullcrap, a stand-in god for those who can't live without a quasi-christian belief, yet know too much to take the religion as given, thusly using pseudo-science/philosophy as an excuse to maintain a minimal basis for their belief in the divine. Differently put, the prime mover is god for those who have a religious hunger, yet are too sceptical to eat the entire bible, and therefore confine themselves to just eating the first few lines of the Genesis.
Or, from a different angle, the olden response: And why is there a prime mover, and how did he come to exist? JUST WHY THE FUCK DOES A MAGICAL CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE IN DEFIANCE OF LOGIC MAKE MORE SENSE THAN A MAGICALLY APPEARING UNIVERSE IN DEFIANCE OF LOGIC?
So as far as I'm concerned, there is no point 3. Just points 1 and 2. Done. End. Le Fin. All of it. World is here, makes no sense, no way of talking any into it. Basta!
Post by: Siquo on December 08, 2010, 05:26:02 pm
I.: Fuck my tone. Delicate sensibilities are not relevant to debate.They are to civil debate, which is what most of us are aiming for, here.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 05:27:05 pm
Any of those or all three? Because I can come up with something for each test, that would fail the other two:All three are sides of the same coin. Wait, not coin. Uh... the same cylinder, then.
1. God (I have experienced it's effects, but can't reproduce it and therefore can't predict it)
2. Virtual particles (virtual photon to electron-positron pair and back, for instance, can be tested for existence but it's observable effects are so minimal as to be non-existant, and the split/join can't be predicted). I cheat a little here but 1 and 2 are too intertwined to find something really exclusive.
3. Math (can't be "observed", can't test "if it's there" (since it's not "anywhere"), yet you can use it to make predictions)
Honestly, I don't see why God would have observable effects to some people but not to others. It makes no real sense, considering that He is meant to love us all equally. Why only appear to certain, apparently randomly chosen people, in ways which can be explained by other means?
"Minimal" is the keyword for the second. It still has potential effects, even if they're on a very small scale.
The third one is ridiculous. I know maths exists, in the same way I know Christianity and the English language exist. That doesn't mean I need to "believe" in it.
Post by: MC Dirty on December 08, 2010, 05:35:00 pm
Now you're talking about a religious, institutionalized concept of God. The idea of a "prime mover" would not contradict any evidence. Thankfully, that's the only concept of god which doesn't contradict evidence.Any of those or all three? Because I can come up with something for each test, that would fail the other two:All three are sides of the same coin. Wait, not coin. Uh... the same cylinder, then.
1. God (I have experienced it's effects, but can't reproduce it and therefore can't predict it)
2. Virtual particles (virtual photon to electron-positron pair and back, for instance, can be tested for existence but it's observable effects are so minimal as to be non-existant, and the split/join can't be predicted). I cheat a little here but 1 and 2 are too intertwined to find something really exclusive.
3. Math (can't be "observed", can't test "if it's there" (since it's not "anywhere"), yet you can use it to make predictions)
Honestly, I don't see why God would have observable effects to some people but not to others. It makes no real sense, considering that He is meant to love us all equally. Why only appear to certain, apparently randomly chosen people, in ways which can be explained by other means?
And I don't see what mathematics has to do with God, honestly...
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 05:36:16 pm
Now you're talking about a religious, institutionalized concept of God. The idea of a "prime mover" would not contradict any evidence. Thankfully, that's the only concept of god which doesn't contradict evidence.Which brings us back to
Quote
You can never observe its effects. You can never perform any kind of test to see if it's there. You cannot make any predictions based on it.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 05:42:44 pm
They are to civil debate, which is what most of us are aiming for, here.I'm not. Civility is distracting.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 05:46:16 pm
Quote from: the OP
Oh, yeah, and just to make it clear, stay civil.
They are to civil debate, which is what most of us are aiming for, here.I'm not. Civility is distracting.
You're in the wrong thread.
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 05:50:17 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 05:58:20 pm
Edit: There are, however, plenty of people feeling the need to...feel insulted, apparently.
Post by: Glowcat on December 08, 2010, 06:03:37 pm
Glowcat: there's millions of uses for 0 beyond counting apples. And how is "something" not a lack of "nothing"? Wordplay, I know, but without the symmetry of opposites words become useless. If there's no darkness, how can we be sure that light exists, et cetera.
If there are a million uses please give a few that aren't dependent upon a quantity concept. Unsupported assertions do not make for debate.
Furthermore I find your stance on symmetry of words very wrong. Words are meant to be descriptive of our reality so as to communicate concepts. We do not have a word for not-a-pen to describe anything which doesn't fall under the label's current meaning, but we can claim that an object does not fall under the label's umbrella with deductive reasoning and knowledge of what that label represents. In our conversations we never refer to not-pens as if they existed independently of the pen concept.
The issue you encounter when claiming that there can be a not-something is that our entire mind is restricted to the concept of there being something (Space and Time). There is nothing we can compare something to so as to prove it isn't something because the umbrella of concepts that the word 'something' includes is literally everything we can conceive of or encounter. Absolute nothingness is an unreal concept that cannot describe anything without that thing being something -- an inherent contradiction.
EDIT: I should also probably explain more about why your Dark/Light example is wrong as well. Dark does not mean Not-Light, but rather it refers to an absence of light within Space and Time. This falls under the real sense of the word nothing, not the absolute version which I find incoherent.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 06:05:31 pm
This is my last post on the matter... I read large chunks of what he was saying and he basically explained it like so:Andir, I'm sorry, but you're contradicting a huge field here with very well-established theories and terminology. I respectfully request that you read a book ASAP before I have to bash my head on my desk so hard I knock myself out. This is completely aside from the theism/atheism thing: Saying "If it's expanding out in all directions... there has to be a center" shows as much understanding of science as saying "If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys". You're a complete layperson here, and some time with a good Stephen Hawking book (or whatever) would do you good. Just because it makes no sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. But yeah, keeping this up isn't doing any wonders for your credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about astrophysics and quite frankly it hurts to read.
...Er, sorry.
Hey, now. You're calmer in more recent posts, but still, while I agree with most of your point, try to be a bit more cordial 'bout it
Anyway! It's not that it's impossible to measure the stretching of the universe or anything, it is. But you have to keep in mind that it really is more like stretching than an expanding. I mean, I haven't read the links, so take what I say with a grain of salt; I'm going off of what I've read in physics classes and a few miscellaneous textbooks. I'm not a physics guy, so I may be missing stuff, but thinking of it like a pudding with raisins seems like an oversimplification, since if space itself is expanding, so too would be the raisins (but it would be less noticeable on the raisin's scale; 1.1 times magnification of something a centimeter long brings it to 1.1 centimeters which is rather a small difference, but it'd bring something 1 lightyear long to 1.1 lightyears, and .1 lightyear is pretty huge). I could be wrong, though.QuoteI'm not sure what you mean... are you saying that our universe is like the atmosphere of Earth if the Earth were expanding where the Earth is a void of emptiness and space is also a void of empty?
Is basically it, although the void of emptiness isn't necessarily right, but it might as well be since accessing them would require some sort of 4-dimensional travel (spatial, not a time dimension, which would put the total up to 5 dimensions if you encounter time). Which is probably fictional.
Our galaxy is the raisin. The dough is space. It is stretching (he actually said stretching) all around us but because we have all this gravity, the dough around us is not and we are not moving... or at least, we cannot perceive that we are moving because they say that the stretching dough around us hides the fact that it's stretching because it is stretching. It's quite reaching if you ask me. At one point it felt like we the raisins were actually pulling the dough in our gravity causing it to stretch all around us. And the idea that our universe is expanding is actually the space around us is expanding, but not the space within us because we have Earth, and the Sun... Ugh, in other words, it's speculation on how it all works to fit Einstein's theory.
I'm done with that topic... it's way off course for "creation" because it's no more concrete than the idea that God created it all. It's strictly philosophy with accepted rules written out with others jumping on and using those rules to come up with "what if" cases. (Like imaginary numbers in calculus.)
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 06:07:07 pm
Let me clarify: I'm not insulted at all. It wasn't directed at me, and even if it was I doubt I'd offended. But it was a mockery of something that many people are invested in, and it's obvious you didn't really try to understand why they feel the need to believe what they do.
In other words: completely pointless.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 06:30:18 pm
2. Virtual particles (virtual photon to electron-positron pair and back, for instance, can be tested for existence but it's observable effects are so minimal as to be non-existant, and the split/join can't be predicted).Come to think of it, I forgot to address this point...
While you can't predict each individual join or split, you can predict what is likely to happen for a large number of them. In the same way that, while I can't predict whether a fair coin flip will be heads or tails, I can predict that over 2 trillion coin flips there's likely to be about 1 trillion heads.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 06:40:21 pm
Ah yes, we're all just lining up to feel insulted over things that aren't insulting to us.
Let me clarify: I'm not insulted at all. It wasn't directed at me, and even if it was I doubt I'd offended. But it was a mockery of something that many people are invested in, and it's obvious you didn't really try to understand why they feel the need to believe what they do.
In other words: completely pointless.
Hold on, I have to bother with exploring the various psychological stress factors that lead to people picking up / sticking to religion, rather than to just go for the meaty bit of presenting why their wished-for deity does not actually explain the universe? And because that I didn't do, I insulted people who aren't even present, but to whose defence you must certainly rush, lest my coarse language cast doubt on the validity of their high-held yet nonetheless deluded and badly justified beliefs?
Why certainly, now I do feel like insulting someone.
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 06:48:14 pm
Ah yes, we're all just lining up to feel insulted over things that aren't insulting to us.
Let me clarify: I'm not insulted at all. It wasn't directed at me, and even if it was I doubt I'd offended. But it was a mockery of something that many people are invested in, and it's obvious you didn't really try to understand why they feel the need to believe what they do.
In other words: completely pointless.
Hold on, I have to bother with exploring the various psychological stress factors that lead to people picking up / sticking to religion, rather than to just go for the meaty bit of presenting why their wished-for deity does not actually explain the universe? And because that I didn't do, I insulted people who aren't even present, but to whose defence you must certainly rush, lest my coarse language cast doubt on the validity of their high-held yet nonetheless deluded and badly justified beliefs?
Why certainly, now I do feel like insulting someone.
You can think they're wrong all you like. You can explain why they're wrong all you like. But don't call them stupid while you're doing it. Even if you don't think your posts should be irritating, they clearly are, so shape up and treat people with more respect. That's how society works, and I'm sure somebody as smart as you should be able to pick up on that.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 06:53:00 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 06:53:34 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 06:54:12 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 06:56:39 pm
You can think they're wrong all you like. You can explain why they're wrong all you like. But don't call them stupid while you're doing it. Even if you don't think your posts should be irritating, they clearly are, so shape up and treat people with more respect. That's how society works, and I'm sure somebody as smart as you should be able to pick up on that.
Hmm, lemme see...no, no pickup. Must be I'm too stupid after all, what with focusing on errors in argumentation rather than abiding by the sacred laws of civil debate and normalmost society.
Really, what am I thinking, calling this "civility" thing distracting.
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 06:57:13 pm
Those are all things I said. Especially:
but to whose defence you must certainly rush, lest my coarse language cast doubt on the validity of their high-held yet nonetheless deluded and badly justified beliefs?
I like it because it outs me as a christian apologist.
And yes, if you want to call a group of people stupid for believing something then you need to at least attempt to understand why they believe it.
Notice how I didn't use the words argue or against.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 06:58:04 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 07:03:10 pm
First off, I never called them stupid. If anything, I'd call them weak, easily manipulated, deluded (that one I actually used!) , or good old WRONG. Secondly, as far as our prime-mover-debate is concerned, *why* they believe it doesn't even matter much past the point where it becomes obvious that they believe it for reasons other than its scientific value (and that point comes early...basically as soon as you've talked to a few believers trying to justify their belief - in anything from full-fledged jehovah to a furthermore nondescript prime mover). *What* they believe, and that it's just as illogical as the world they try to defend themselves against by means of their belief, is what's relevant.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 07:06:46 pm
The ritual aspects on their own, to be precise. IE, assume that either a theist or an atheist might be the one who does them. Are they good, bad, or neutral?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 07:12:55 pm
Apart from that, neutral of course. If someone needs his five minutes of prayer to his imaginary friend to get through the day, fine by me. But if people interfere with others or other's pursuits of noble goals (such as...science! Or contraception! Or happiness! Or politics! (Alright, politics *when* they're being noble)), then it looses its "none of your business" protection, and instead falls straight into the territory of "explain why you're supposed to be here, or GTFO".
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 07:21:22 pm
First off, I never called them stupid. If anything, I'd call them weak, easily manipulated, deluded, or good old WRONG.
That's so much nicer.
You know, I would say everyone is weak, easily manipulated, and deluded. Including myself. Especially myself.
And I should say here that I don't care about a prime mover debate. Who cares? Belief, counter-factual or no, doesn't have any effect on reality. The only thing that changes is the perception of the believer.
Apart from that, neutral of course. If someone needs his five minutes of prayer to his imaginary friend to get through the day, fine by me. But if people interfere with others or other's pursuits of noble goals (such as...science! Or contraception! Or happiness! Or politics!)
Depends. If Christians want to run their own little Christian science thing, and refuse all doctors, whatever.
More literally, if people want to believe Intelligent Design, fuck it, I don't care. It's only when they try to enforce their beliefs that it becomes a problem.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 07:23:07 pm
Agreed that nobody should step on anybody's toes for religious reasons. But people step on each others' toes well enough as-is without religion, too.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 07:33:25 pm
Quote
You know, I would say everyone is weak, easily manipulated, and deluded.Almost all religious people are several of these, and then some.
Quote
And I should say here that I don't care about a prime mover debate. Who cares? Belief, counter-factual or no, doesn't have any effect on reality. The only thing that changes is the perception of the believer.When belief is shared by many, especially when it's hundreds of millions, it may very well shape society on up to a global scale - which does affect an unfortunately tangible part of reality.
So, to not sound too soft here:
RELIGION IS FAILURE! AGNOSTICISM IS COWARDICE! AGGRESSIVE ATHEISM IS THE WAY!
Also, there is no such thing as a prime mover.
Post by: Andir on December 08, 2010, 07:34:11 pm
Depends. If Christians want to run their own little Christian science thing, and refuse all doctors, whatever.Like, for instance, when those same people go to the hospital to get treatment and get their treatment ideas covered by my tax money. (ie: if some hospital is paying some holistic healer to be on staff for these people, I'm going to be wholly upset.)
More literally, if people want to believe Intelligent Design, fuck it, I don't care. It's only when they try to enforce their beliefs that it becomes a problem.
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 07:39:54 pm
I'm a strong atheistic pantheist. That is, a god is undesirable, unimportant, and impossible.
Like, for instance, when those same people go to the hospital to get treatment and get their treatment ideas covered by my tax money. (ie: if some hospital is paying some holistic healer to be on staff for these people, I'm going to be wholly upset.)
Whatever. The placebo effect is a powerful thing. It probably does them some good. (Homeopathy is pretty fucking dumb though).
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 07:45:30 pm
Health ought to be provided free of charge by qualified professionals. A qualified professional will NOT let the terms "holistic healing / homeopathy" and "expensive" get into the same phrase, no matter how potent the placebo effect.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 07:47:54 pm
Depends. If Christians want to run their own little Christian science thing, and refuse all doctors, whatever.I'd agree, as long as they don't make their children refuse medicine as well. Apart from anything else, letting them refuse mandatory vaccinations puts other people at risk.
Post by: Sowelu on December 08, 2010, 08:02:13 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 08:05:19 pm
But there's also, say, Jehovah's witnesses who refuse vaccinations and organ transplants.
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 08:09:43 pm
I'd agree, as long as they don't make their children refuse medicine as well. Apart from anything else, letting them refuse mandatory vaccinations puts other people at risk.
It's tough. If the parents really believe that their child will go to hell for getting medical treatment, well then... I guess the problem is why the hell do they believe something like that? But think about how hard it would be for you the other way around. A doctor denies potentially life-saving surgery in favor of prayer. On one hand, denying your child medical care is very nearly outright evil. On the other hand, their eternal soul is more important than their body.
It's an absolute mess, is what's for sure. Should we do what's best for someone because they're wrong? or should we leave them to deal with the consequences of their ignorance? Even if innocents suffer in the process.
Health ought to be provided free of charge by qualified professionals. A qualified professional will NOT let the terms "holistic healing / homeopathy" and "expensive" get into the same phrase, no matter how potent the placebo effect.
I agree. Most "homeopathy experts" are quacks exploiting people for the money. But if we lived in a society where homeopathy was considered an acceptable alternative ( "SCIENCE PROVES THAT WATER, LIKE ELEPHANTS, NEVER FORGETS" ) then I could live with that. After all, we already live in a society that thinks _____ IDOL is not only entertaining but musical.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 08:12:52 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 08:15:29 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 08, 2010, 08:32:06 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 08, 2010, 08:33:10 pm
It's tough. If the parents really believe that their child will go to hell for getting medical treatment, well then... I guess the problem is why the hell do they believe something like that? But think about how hard it would be for you the other way around. A doctor denies potentially life-saving surgery in favor of prayer. On one hand, denying your child medical care is very nearly outright evil. On the other hand, their eternal soul is more important than their body.They're free to believe in an eternal soul, but they can't use that as an excuse to kill children. I draw the line at innocents being hurt every time.
It's an absolute mess, is what's for sure. Should we do what's best for someone because they're wrong? or should we leave them to deal with the consequences of their ignorance? Even if innocents suffer in the process.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2010, 08:38:08 pm
Indeed. I personally think that if you refuse life-saving treatment or try to make your children do the same on religious grounds, then you have passed the point of making proper judgement and should be treated in accordance with implied consent.It's tough. If the parents really believe that their child will go to hell for getting medical treatment, well then... I guess the problem is why the hell do they believe something like that? But think about how hard it would be for you the other way around. A doctor denies potentially life-saving surgery in favor of prayer. On one hand, denying your child medical care is very nearly outright evil. On the other hand, their eternal soul is more important than their body.They're free to believe in an eternal soul, but they can't use that as an excuse to kill children. I draw the line at innocents being hurt every time.
It's an absolute mess, is what's for sure. Should we do what's best for someone because they're wrong? or should we leave them to deal with the consequences of their ignorance? Even if innocents suffer in the process.
Post by: Willfor on December 08, 2010, 08:51:25 pm
as far as I'm concerned, a one-man-culture is better than a billion-people one, simply because it doesn't impose. Similar thing with christian science / intelligent design / lots of comparable shite - it wastes resources, distracts people's attentions, and invariable attracts followers that then turn to spreading their...I'll call it wrongness, because fuck yeah. Certainly, I don't see it as a priority (because in most cases they're too ridiculous to stand up to any scrutiny), but I'd rather like to see it gone than to state false indifference about it. It's no immediate danger to anything, but nonetheless a tremendous waste.This seems to me like something that could stand to have its relaxed state amplified. Though I could be wrong in that regard.QuoteYou know, I would say everyone is weak, easily manipulated, and deluded.Almost all religious people are several of these, and then some.QuoteAnd I should say here that I don't care about a prime mover debate. Who cares? Belief, counter-factual or no, doesn't have any effect on reality. The only thing that changes is the perception of the believer.When belief is shared by many, especially when it's hundreds of millions, it may very well shape society on up to a global scale - which does affect an unfortunately tangible part of reality.
So, to not sound too soft here:
RELIGION IS FAILURE! AGNOSTICISM IS COWARDICE! AGGRESSIVE ATHEISM IS THE WAY!
Also, there is no such thing as a prime mover.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 08, 2010, 08:57:48 pm
The economy drives a wasting of irreplaceable resources, an arms race in the commercialisation of human life and the transformation of living humans into working machines, as well as a selling-out of mental capabilities on all fronts. The portion of the economy that serves proper sustenance and sustainability rather than cancerous growth is frustratingly small.Which irreplaceable resources are you referring to?
Post by: Renault on December 08, 2010, 09:22:54 pm
The economy drives a wasting of irreplaceable resources, an arms race in the commercialisation of human life and the transformation of living humans into working machines, as well as a selling-out of mental capabilities on all fronts. The portion of the economy that serves proper sustenance and sustainability rather than cancerous growth is frustratingly small.Which irreplaceable resources are you referring to?
For the love of God lets avoid that debate again.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 08, 2010, 09:52:42 pm
i just wanted to express my support for ruthless militant atheism.
Post by: Argembarger on December 08, 2010, 09:53:49 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 08, 2010, 09:57:35 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 09:59:14 pm
Anyway. The "You can believe whatever you want to believe as long as you're not hurting people" thing is generally a good place to work from, in terms of how you're going to regulate other people. This means that, yes, there are a lot of cases where you have to force people to do things against their beliefs (such as the aforementioned children situations), and I think that that's ok. Actually, here's a thing. What differences, if any, do you see between your criteria for how you act, and your criteria for how other people ought to act in terms of religious belief?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 08, 2010, 10:16:19 pm
Anyway. The "You can believe whatever you want to believe as long as you're not hurting people" thing is generally a good place to work from, in terms of how you're going to regulate other people. This means that, yes, there are a lot of cases where you have to force people to do things against their beliefs (such as the aforementioned children situations), and I think that that's ok.
you're hurting someone when you condemn them to hell, though...
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 10:19:37 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 08, 2010, 10:19:53 pm
Anyway. The "You can believe whatever you want to believe as long as you're not hurting people" thing is generally a good place to work from, in terms of how you're going to regulate other people. This means that, yes, there are a lot of cases where you have to force people to do things against their beliefs (such as the aforementioned children situations), and I think that that's ok.
you're hurting someone when you condemn them to hell, though...
Hell isn't real. Ergo, being condemn to a fantasy realm cannot hurt.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 08, 2010, 10:21:19 pm
Be good or Satan'll getcha!
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 08, 2010, 10:30:27 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on December 08, 2010, 10:32:07 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 10:39:34 pm
No. Santa actually gave presents.
The hell he did! Socks != Presents.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 08, 2010, 10:40:34 pm
Whenever Santa doesn't give good presents, it's your parents fault. Whenever he does, it's Santa you must praise.No. Santa actually gave presents.
The hell he did! Socks != Presents.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 08, 2010, 10:50:22 pm
No. Santa actually gave presents.
you have to die to get them, actually. if you're a suicide bomber you get 50 virgins
is it okay to insult people whose belief is generally accepted as idiotic? can i call a scientology victim an idiot, for example?
Post by: Bauglir on December 08, 2010, 10:52:06 pm
is it okay to insult people whose belief is generally accepted as idiotic? can i call a scientology victim an idiot, for example?
I'd prefer it if you didn't. It'd be so much more effective to tell them why what they believe is wrong, and let them draw the conclusion for themselves. A lot likelier to make it stick, too. Nobody in history has been convinced that they were an idiot by being told that they were an idiot.
Post by: fqllve on December 08, 2010, 10:56:57 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 08, 2010, 11:02:23 pm
you have to die to get them, actually. if you're a suicide bomber you get 50 virgins
I thought it was 72?
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 12:22:44 am
Not an easy task and I definitely can respect the effort.
tl;dr: There are basically two kinds of religious people, those that exploit it and those that need it. Please distinguish between the two when throwing down blanket statements like "all religion is evil and should be abolished".
Also, want to debate logic and reason with someone, but this one lowly thread doesn't quite satisfy your desire for intellectual checkmate? Might I recommend the Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)? Go to the forums. Try to convince them that the earth is round. Good luck; many have gone before you and came away frustrated and losing hope for the human race.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 12:37:30 am
Might I recommend the Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)?Excuse me, I need to go smash my head against a wall untill I forget what I read on that site.
EDIT: Their Administrator has 8000 posts. Wha- I do- ther- aaonjgrqj rek
GLQ uyvbj[8ygrvka;\p KHGJPA=.VKGA G
V
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 12:39:23 am
Quote from: main page
"Because there are different schools of Flat Earth thought, the Wiki should not necessarily be taken as the "official" view of the Society. The specific beliefs of our members are widely varied, as should be expected from such a group of free-thinkers!"
EDIT FOR YOUR EDIT:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Qj4F5ED0r9ip9M:http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/its-dangerous-to-go-alone-take-this-500x312.jpg&t=1)
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 03:59:20 am
and I was hoping we might, for once, get past that.Twice, the last one lasted for 300+ pages before being closed for different reasons. Still, you're doing a good job.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 09, 2010, 04:35:16 am
Only got five minutes, so I'll be quick here:
Quote
But to go around saying everyone who follows religion is stupid, naive raving lunatics who absolutely need to stop and become atheists? Well, first of all, that makes you seem exactly like the religious strawmen you are attacking, and secondly, it basically makes you a Stop Having Fun Guy who wants to thoroughly dismantle the establishment, far beyond the assholes who should indeed be stopped, all the way through to the people whose lives you would legitimately ruin should your desires be made manifest.We're a discussion on the internet, not the parliament. We're perfectly allowed to have intolerant, sweeping, destructive views and arguments, as long as they're right.
Post by: Rilder on December 09, 2010, 05:47:28 am
We're a discussion on the internet, not the parliament. We're perfectly allowed to have intolerant, sweeping, destructive views and arguments, as long as they're right.
Yeah your allowed to -have- those views since nobody can control what you think, but its up to the forum owners discretion if your allowed to shove them down peoples throats.
Post by: Phmcw on December 09, 2010, 05:56:05 am
We're a discussion on the internet, not the parliament. We're perfectly allowed to have intolerant, sweeping, destructive views and arguments, as long as they're right.
No, we aren't. If you want that kind of discussion, you know where to go.
I pretty much agree with you on the "religion is stupid" matter, but we're supposed to stay civil.
After all, I wouldn't like to be called a stupid Satan loving sinner, bound to go to hell to get raped by red hot metal rod by a fundamentalist Christian even through he think he's right too.
So stay calm and civil.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 06:01:43 am
Calling idiots idiots is faster than explaining why the idiots' idiocy is idiotic.Saying the word "airplane" is faster than building one, but it won't let you fly. Calling someone an idiot will never convince him that his current viewpoint might be idiotic. And before you counter that that's impossible: if it were impossible there'd be no atheists.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 06:05:11 am
After all, I wouldn't like to be called a stupid Satan loving sinner, bound to go to hell to get raped by red hot metal rod by a fundamentalist Christian even through he think he's right too.you'd feel offended by that?
not that i enjoy being raped by fundamentalist christians but it's hard to take a "you're a sinner and will go to hell" seriously.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 06:55:05 am
No. Santa actually gave presents.
The hell he did! Socks != Presents.
Just for the record: You must have been gifted insufficiently cozy socks.
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 09:08:54 am
We're a discussion on the internet, not the parliament. We're perfectly allowed to have intolerant, sweeping, destructive views and arguments, as long as they're right.
Let's all be the literal embodiment of the very group we seek to tear down by using the exact same logic they do to justify it.
Yes.
Edit:
Let's say you have an atheist and a theist, together in a room. Both of them have the exact same beliefs about absolutely everything except for whether or not god exists. The only thing they can possibly argue about is the one thing that is supposed to be unanswerable. Whether you believe that it was deliberately constructed to be unanswerable, or that it's due to the will of this god, it's irrelevant, the question is still unanswerable. If you don't believe that the argument itself is an utterly futile and pointless waste of time (which it is), how do you go about making any sort of coherent argument?
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 09:38:37 am
If you don't believe that the argument itself is an utterly futile and pointless waste of time (which it is), how do you go about making any sort of coherent argument?If you do believe that the argument is an utterly futile and pointless waste of time, what are you doing posting in this topic? Well, except for repeatedly pointing out how utterly futile and pointless the argument is, which can go straight to the "Unoriginals" in the OP.
Edit: Oh wait, it's already there.
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 09:44:47 am
I'm posting here to try to convince people of that very point, the act of doing so being fundamentally different than offering it as a slipshod defense of my own beliefs.
This is a thread revolving around convincing other people, is it not?
Edit:
Quote
This thread is not about just stating your own viewpoint. This thread is about making cogent arguments to convince others.
I offered a thought experiment in support of my viewpoint.
Also, I'm not saying anyone's stupid for posting here and that this thread will never get anywhere, which is what is in the Unoriginals post. What I'm saying is that the question is unanswerable, which is an entirely different thing to say, and it is also not in the unoriginals post. This thread could indeed progress towards a general consensus that, because the question is unanswerable that there's no point in arguing anymore, and reach a conclusion. This is not "not going anywhere", I would consider this "progress".
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 10:43:25 am
Hmm, I'd argue the opposite. I think everyone is born an atheist and they are indoctrinated into specific belief. (Whatever is culturally significant at the time.)Calling idiots idiots is faster than explaining why the idiots' idiocy is idiotic.Saying the word "airplane" is faster than building one, but it won't let you fly. Calling someone an idiot will never convince him that his current viewpoint might be idiotic. And before you counter that that's impossible: if it were impossible there'd be no atheists.
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 10:52:59 am
Saying the word "airplane" is faster than building one, but it won't let you fly. Calling someone an idiot will never convince him that his current viewpoint might be idiotic. And before you counter that that's impossible: if it were impossible there'd be no atheists.Hmm, I'd argue the opposite. I think everyone is born an atheist and they are indoctrinated into specific belief. (Whatever is culturally significant at the time.)
Oh course they get born atheist, why else do you think so many religions indoctrinate kids at an age when they trust what they are told. Thankfully the conversion rate of adults from atheist to theist is orders of magnitude lower than the reverse so religion is a self solving problem given a long enough time span.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 10:59:28 am
Oh course they get born atheist, why else do you think so many religions indoctrinate kids at an age when they trust what they are told. Thankfully the conversion rate from atheist to theist is orders of magnitude lower than the reverse so religion is a self solving problem given a long enough time span.Conversion exists, that was the point, so at least we agree on that.
However, if people are born atheist, then conversion rates from atheist to theist is many orders of magnitude greater than the reverse: We all start out atheists and there are more theists than atheists in the world. :)
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 11:09:20 am
Conversion exists, that was the point, so at least we agree on that.
However, if people are born atheist, then conversion rates from atheist to theist is many orders of magnitude greater than the reverse: We all start out atheists and there are more theists than atheists in the world. :)
Touche. Although I'd disagree with there are more statement. The only people who claim that seem to be the various churches, and frankly most people that would put down they are religion x but don't actually practice in any way probably shouldn't be counted which would reduce the theist count further.
I will reword my statement to conversion rates of adults.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 11:17:05 am
You don't have to think about God 24/7 to be a theist. I don't think most theists think about God every day, but if you would ask them, they'd probably stop and think for a moment, and eventually say that they do believe in God, they just don't do anything with that knowledge.
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 11:23:28 am
(This is a guess... have no numbers) Well, Churchgoers have an advantage of social interaction leading to more marriages and likely kids, whom will be indoctrinated into the same church. I know the US went through a phase of "baby boomers" where parents would give birth to several kids (I have 7 aunts and uncles on just one side, 9 on the other) so that's a return of investment of over 300-400% more kids indoctrinated.Oh course they get born atheist, why else do you think so many religions indoctrinate kids at an age when they trust what they are told. Thankfully the conversion rate from atheist to theist is orders of magnitude lower than the reverse so religion is a self solving problem given a long enough time span.Conversion exists, that was the point, so at least we agree on that.
However, if people are born atheist, then conversion rates from atheist to theist is many orders of magnitude greater than the reverse: We all start out atheists and there are more theists than atheists in the world. :)
Now, a number that would be interesting to me is the number of non-religious who get married vs. the religious and how many children they produce.
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 11:27:59 am
But what then is a theist?
You don't have to think about God 24/7 to be a theist. I don't think most theists think about God every day, but if you would ask them, they'd probably stop and think for a moment, and eventually say that they do believe in God, they just don't do anything with that knowledge.
I'd say most don't believe they just fill in the form when ask as that is what they have always done and have only ever thought about it when asked. More of an autoresponse than a belief. It is certainly true that the majority of 'christians' I know have never been to a church since they moved out from their parents place. Of course maybe I only have this view as a chunk of my family is religious and it's obvious they are from how they live.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 12:54:02 pm
The red text was just my "This is my 'moderating the thread' statement" thing. Since I want to participate in the thread, I want to make it obvious whether I'm saying something as just somebody talking, or as somebody considering locking it to prevent a flamewar, and make sure that I'm not getting the roles confused in a sort of, "Fine, I'm leaving and taking my ball with me" sort of way. Probably should've been more explicit about that, in retrospect.Add the Word of God (hehe) rule to the OP.
Conversion exists, that was the point, so at least we agree on that.I think it's a kindof evolutionary thing. Not evolution of organisms, but evolution of ideas (I would call them by the technical term, "memes", but that's taken on a much more stupid connotation).
However, if people are born atheist, then conversion rates from atheist to theist is many orders of magnitude greater than the reverse: We all start out atheists and there are more theists than atheists in the world. :)
Afterall, like genes, ideas are passed to your children. The ideas that do best are the ones that promote their own propagation.
As such, texts like the bible, with clauses stopping itself from ever being modified and which explicitly tell you to pass them down to your children are preserved from generation to generation. Atheism, which is far vaguer an idea that has no clauses to have itself passed to the next generation... less so.
Anyway, new idea:
If God exists, he doesn't want anyone to believe in him.
Think about it. He promises a whole lot of stuff will happen if you pray to him, but... your chances of getting what you pray for are no better than chance. He randomly sends natural disasters and inflicts terrible diseases. He dishes out horrible events equally to good and bad people.
All of this was intended to build up an image of God in people's minds, and then knock it down. Unfortunately, it seems He misjudged the mindset of people...
What do you think, everyone?
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 01:04:59 pm
What do you think, everyone?
Based on the starting assumption that god exists it's one of the only two logical conclusions I know of. Although I don't like your reasoning to get to that conclusion, it's weak :P
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 01:05:49 pm
Just that otherwise it's hard to explain why an omnipotent God would act the way he does (or doesn't).
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 01:10:58 pm
Mostly because it's a joke, but yeah.
Of course, because she isn't real, but if anyone showed any kind of indication she was then there is plenty of good arguments people have made for that conclusion.
Just that otherwise it's hard to explain why an omnipotent God would act the way he does (or doesn't).
The only other one I heard was that he is sadistic so yer pretty much.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 02:57:27 pm
The only other one I heard was that he is sadistic so yer pretty much.Testing is not sadistic. I have to reprimand my child once in a while, and I don't enjoy doing it. Sometimes, I let her climb something that I know she will fall off from, just so she has the opportunity to learn. Laissez-faire is not sadism, it's necessary to let children become adults. When she doesn't get something that she wants, she's so sad it's like the end of the world (she's 2.5 yrs old, btw). I can totally see a benevolent God up there, letting all the bad stuff happen down here, because what we think is the end of the world or really really bad is merely a bump in the head in the grand scheme of things.
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 03:02:56 pm
Post by: Duke 2.0 on December 09, 2010, 03:08:35 pm
On the other hand you don't place things she needs high up forcing her to climb and fall for your amusement.This assumed a god would do these things for amusement.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 03:10:32 pm
for your amusementNope, but I do it to let her learn how to climb. So where this cynical idea that God is amused comes from, I don't know. If you heard him laugh, at least you got proof it exists :)
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 03:11:55 pm
This assumed a god would do these things for amusement.
To be fair my response was just because siquos was kinda random I'm not sure why he thought I was talking about testing. But yes it does assume that.
Nope, but I do it to let her learn how to climb. So where this cynical idea that God is amused comes from, I don't know. If you heard him laugh, at least you got proof it exists :)
I'd take that as proof :)
Personally I think if there was a god she would have slipped up and given at least one hint by now.
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 03:14:22 pm
Typically, monotheistic gods are infallible. The only fallible gods I know of are polytheistic ones, usually due to squabbling or the like.
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 03:15:44 pm
Typically, monotheistic gods are infallible. The only fallible gods I know of are polytheistic ones, usually due to squabbling or the like.
There are more of them though, so law of averages and all ;)
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 09, 2010, 03:16:29 pm
There are more of them though, so law of averages and all ;)
Or Conservation of Ninjutsu. :)
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 03:22:49 pm
330,000 gods is a lot. :P
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 03:27:47 pm
Hehehe, if everyone chose their worldview based on the law of averages, I guess we'd all be Hindu.
330,000 gods is a lot. :P
Wikipedia claims 330 million on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities :) (and 330 000 on the main article) all about religion matches the first number. Although it should be pointed out that Hinduism is monotheistic (and also has a trinity like pretty much every other religion)
Post by: GaelicVigil on December 09, 2010, 03:58:20 pm
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Post by: Shades on December 09, 2010, 04:02:21 pm
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Well that's just down right silly. There are plenty of things we can get to the truth of. Always learning is a good place to start though.
(Personally I'd consider the subject of this thread one of them although I know others would differ in that respect)
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 05:12:25 pm
To be fair my response was just because siquos was kinda random I'm not sure why he thought I was talking about testing. But yes it does assume that.Random? No, because you said sadistic, I was reminded of the book of Job*. Job is tortured by God (or the devil with God's consent but whatever), but it's actually a test that he passes. You could take it literal and say the God is a gambling sadistic SOB, or conclude from it that bad stuff doesn't just happen, your faith is tested through perseverance, and even though it does, God still loves you. This can help people enormously when going through bad times.
The whole idea that you should protect from harm that which you love is completely bunk. I'd get an annoying spoiled little brat if I did. And now don't compare death to a bump in the head, it's all relative as was said before.
*(Disclaimer: I've only read parts of the bible, and never had any education on it (I was raised an atheist))
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 05:17:58 pm
Testing is not sadistic. I have to reprimand my child once in a while, and I don't enjoy doing it. Sometimes, I let her climb something that I know she will fall off from, just so she has the opportunity to learn. Laissez-faire is not sadism, it's necessary to let children become adults. When she doesn't get something that she wants, she's so sad it's like the end of the world (she's 2.5 yrs old, btw). I can totally see a benevolent God up there, letting all the bad stuff happen down here, because what we think is the end of the world or really really bad is merely a bump in the head in the grand scheme of things.Yeah, in a different world, one where suffering is limited and mostly self inflicted, this would be a strong argument.
In this world, however, were people are born with crippling, ultimately fatal genetic diseases, where there are parasites that live in children's eyes and all sorts of stuff that seems designed to cause as much random, irreversable suffering as possible...
Random? No, because you said sadistic, I was reminded of the book of Job*. Job is tortured by God (or the devil with God's consent but whatever), but it's actually a test that he passes. You could take it literal and say the God is a gambling sadistic SOB, or conclude from it that bad stuff doesn't just happen, your faith is tested through perseverance, and even though it does, God still loves you. This can help people enormously when going through bad times.Yeah, the Job story strikes me as a perfect example of sadism. Not the classic kind you think of... a more subtle, manipulative kind. The kind thatan abusive husband uses, perhaps.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 05:34:50 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 05:40:02 pm
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 05:47:40 pm
man from dirt /
fuckin' theology /
how does it work?
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 05:51:26 pm
In this world, however, were people are born with crippling, ultimately fatal genetic diseases, where there are parasites that live in children's eyes and all sorts of stuff that seems designed to cause as much random, irreversable suffering as possible...Perception. In my daughter's world, the absolute worst thing that can happen is not getting icecream when she wants it, and there are a lot of things out of her control (and in my control) that she would like to change. Eating vegetables, for instance, is a torture beyond measure. "If my daddy really loved me he wouldn't let me eat this shit". In your world, it's kids with parasites in their eyes. In God's world, who knows?
Quote
Yeah, the Job story strikes me as a perfect example of sadism. Not the classic kind you think of... a more subtle, manipulative kind. The kind thatan abusive husband uses, perhaps.Your ideas of suffering need relativity. If I jumble the pieces of a puzzle to see if she can still do it, am I torturing the puzzle-maker in a subtle manipulative way?
Towards my daughter I feel omnibenevolence, as far as a human can feel such a thing. That doesn't mean doing what she wants. People who insist that God isn't omnibenevolent because there's suffering in the world, haven't grown up since they were two and a half. IMNSHO.
Post by: Bauglir on December 09, 2010, 05:57:45 pm
An omnibenevolent deity is possible, provided He or She is not also defined as omnipotent simultaneously. You can't have both in a world with suffering.
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 06:03:54 pm
An omnibenevolent deity is possible, provided He or She is not also defined as omnipotent simultaneously. You can't have both in a world with suffering.Such a being would care for dirt as much as it cared for Bob over there. Omnibenevolence is a pretty sad life, especially with us tossing all those electrons around.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:05:35 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 06:08:40 pm
I don't think you can argue "God can just change the rules to make anything possible so that we're always happy". For one thing, you wind up a logical fallacy like "can God make a rock heavier than he can lift". But also...well, hell, who's to say that allowing suffering isn't benevolent? I sure as hell think it is. That's why I'm not hopped up on ten thousand illicit substances all the time. Besides, a lot of us are DF players, we know that doing things the hard way makes us happier.
"But only for trivial things; banishing death and disease wouldn't make the world a worse place!" -- how do YOU know?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:12:45 pm
Perception. In my daughter's world, the absolute worst thing that can happen is not getting icecream when she wants it, and there are a lot of things out of her control (and in my control) that she would like to change. Eating vegetables, for instance, is a torture beyond measure. "If my daddy really loved me he wouldn't let me eat this shit". In your world, it's kids with parasites in their eyes. In God's world, who knows?It's not remotely equivalent. Your daughter has a chance to learn from the experience, and may be taught something. Crucially, she carries on living afterwards, so she at least has an opportuiny to make benefit from it.
On the other hand, what is God trying to teach someone with Cystic Fibrosis? Don't be born in a body with a serious, uncurable, unavoidable and ultimately fatal genetic disorder? There's nothing that can possibly be learnt from it, since the person almost always ends up dead at a young age.
e puzzle-maker in a subtle manipulative way?Hey, so you do make cheap insults. Good to know.
Towards my daughter I feel omnibenevolence, as far as a human can feel such a thing. That doesn't mean doing what she wants. People who insist that God isn't omnibenevolent because there's suffering in the world, haven't grown up since they were two and a half. IMNSHO.
Anyway, there is a real, quantitive difference between what you describe and what God did to Lot. What would be more equivalent is beating your daughter every night and still teaching her that "daddy loves you".
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 06:15:50 pm
Now, I don't have a problem with any of this because I don't believe any gods exist, benevolent or otherwise, but arguing that untold suffering is a good thing is somthing I simply cannot leave alone. You don't learn from adversity when it destroys you, which our world's adversity has a tendincy to do.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:17:35 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:18:35 pm
What if the suffering was a test to see who is a Good Person, helping others in there suffering, and who is a Bad Person, taking advantage of others pain.Yeah, something like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is a brilliant way to tell if people are good or bad.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:19:17 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:20:07 pm
Secondly, can I use that as justification for child murder?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:21:44 pm
You can try.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 06:22:18 pm
Or Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva. Sorry little Timmy, you get to slowly die over your twenty-five year lifespan as your muscles turn to bone and you lose all ability to do anything. Sorry again for preforming medical tests that actually accelerated the disease before we knew what it was, but I'm sure this is all just a test from god for you.What if the suffering was a test to see who is a Good Person, helping others in there suffering, and who is a Bad Person, taking advantage of others pain.Yeah, something like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is a brilliant way to tell if people are good or bad.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:23:38 pm
I think it's widely believed that all babies go to heaven, as they have not even begun to sin.Although that's not an interpretation supported by the bible or the catholic church... sure, whatever.
You can try.
And why should God get a pass for it when I don't? I mean, killing children is apparently vital to "testing" people!
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:25:12 pm
I'm sure that when we finally catch this guy his sentencing will be very harsh.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:26:24 pm
He's less killing children and more not stopping them from dieing.Ah, right. So if I see my child start to drown in the bath, it'd be perfectly acceptable to walk away and leave them to die?
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 06:31:04 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 09, 2010, 06:31:35 pm
It is possible to test somebody to determine if they are a good person or not, and still have that test be cruel and unnecessary (without necessarily being sadistic). As much as you might believe it is a test of a person's strength of character to doom their child to a slow and painful death, the (possible) fact that it accomplishes that doesn't negate the horrible, pointless pain and death inflicted on the victim.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 06:32:38 pm
Ah, right. So if I see my child start to drown in the bath, it'd be perfectly acceptable to walk away and leave them to die?I had this whole sarcastic Pessimistic Nihilistic rant thing thought up when I just remembered this is the internet, and every debate by definition is vapid, infantile and pointless.
I truly have nothing more to say.
Carry on.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 06:33:27 pm
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 06:36:19 pm
If you're gonna go ahead and assume God is real for the purposes of your thought exercise, you must also assume an afterlife, because I've never heard of any explanation where you have one but not the other.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:37:39 pm
Pretty hard to assign morals to someone who knows way more about the universe than you. Should the rosebush hate the gardener who trims it? And how the hell do you know what happens after death? Heaven and especially hell are unlikely, but "God is horrible because he lets people die" seems disingenuous to me, especially when God is usually inextricably linked to something existing after or beyond death. If God stepped in and started curing random things, we wouldn't learn to cure them ourselves... Me, I kinda like a small part of the Mormon belief, the one where God wants us to become fellow creators ourselves. Hey, maybe this is boot camp.It doesn't really matter. Inflicting huge amounts of pain, suffering and anguish on innocent people is simply wrong, especially if your omnipotence means it's completely unnecessary. If God does regard doing horrible things to good people as a "test", I want nothing to do with him.
In addition, if he "needs" to test people by putting them through this stuff, why is he ok with sending babies straight to the afterlife without any kind of test at all?
Post by: Bauglir on December 09, 2010, 06:39:38 pm
Remember, pain is corporeal, while religion teaches that we are more than corporeal. Ergo, pain is not -real- to God, and once we reach whatever afterlife or transcendence there is, it will not be real to us, either.
But it's real now. And as an omnipotent deity, God could prevent that in any number of ways. He could have defined Goodness in such a way as to make unnecessary pain, created humanity with the pain-caused Goodness already inherent, or (better still) have made corporeal pain a consequence of evil, rather than arbitrary and random chance or (as can be the case) corporeal good.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 06:48:56 pm
This, by the way, is my major beef with Christianity. God just stepped in and changed the rules with Jesus, and that doesn't make any sense at all to me. There's...a lot of issues I have surrounding that part, in fact. I'm not advocating for the Christian god or for Jesus, there's too much wrong there.
I continue to assert that for God's purposes, pain doesn't exist in the way we think it does. Oh yeah it's terrible, but that's to our bodies and not our souls. Blindly asserting it again doesn't really make it any more true or compelling, but that's my viewpoint for why the existence of pain isn't evil on the part of the creator.
(Also: This whole thing has to do with a God who actually cares about life, humanity, the afterlife, etc. I think that it's a very distinct concept from the Prime Mover, who is completely apathetic towards the human condition, doesn't get involved whatsoever after throwing the switch, and does not require an afterlife.)
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 06:51:20 pm
(Also: This whole thing has to do with a God who actually cares about life, humanity, the afterlife, etc. I think that it's a very distinct concept from the Prime Mover, who is completely apathetic towards the human condition, doesn't get involved whatsoever after throwing the switch, and does not require an afterlife.)And who is on about the same existence level as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, as far as I can tell :/.
Post by: Siquo on December 09, 2010, 07:10:23 pm
God totally can fulfill every human desire without ruining our ability to interact with the world happily;Ah, He could, but you wouldn't be you, you'd be someone else than you are now. And perhaps he has, and has just implanted you with memories of bad stuff to make you your unique self. Omnipotence is tricky like that.
Crucially, she carries on living afterwards, so she at least has an opportuiny to make benefit from it.Yeah, and God's got an afterlife for us, that lasts an eternity. By his standards of age, we are only two-year olds (so no, that wasn't an insult, it's a relativity thing that goes for all of us).
If you have the power to prevent suffering, lose nothing by doing so, and choose not to act, then you are evil.My daughter likes icecream, and even if it were good for you, she still wouldn't get it every day, because she'd become a spoiled brat.
That's Genesis for you: he gave us everything, and we turned out to be disobedient spoiled brats. And God was all like "Ok, then you can go find out for yourself, and if you fall, I'll pick you up." or whatever, and humans went all like WTF, if you don't catch us you're goddamned evil, you SOB, and God said "well first of all I don't have a ma so that's a bit cruel" and humans were all "oh ok that was a bit low but you're still evil" and God was like yeah, but if I gave you everything you wanted, you would all be me so what's the use and humans went all damn, he's right, but we still want it, and God said to them "Lo and behold and such, you're all me for eternity, but you get all also get memories from a miserable and great time on earth, and humans were like oh, memories, great, and God said yeah I just made em right HERE. And somewhere in the middle of those memories was this guy who slept too little and went on this awesome rant. Blink with your eyes and ten years have passed. You're just a memory.
It doesn't really matter. Inflicting huge amounts of pain, suffering and anguish on innocent people is simply wrongOh and suddenly the atheist comes with Absolute Morals. This thread is going the wrong way around...
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 07:15:07 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 07:17:31 pm
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 07:18:58 pm
I preferred the Judaic hell, or at least my understanding of it. If you're sufficiently flawed...they simply unmake you in the fires. Poof. Time to be reforged from scratch.Cool, so no penalty.
Post by: Argembarger on December 09, 2010, 07:23:53 pm
Actually, you know what? This is likely just going to turn into a walkthrough of many of the classic arguments and counterarguments, which will eventually cycle back to my belief that it's a question with no answer, thus meaningless to discuss.
Siquo was absolutely right; what am I doing in here? My perspective is fairly useless to both sides of the debate.
Before I go and try my hardest not to come back, I'll just say that contemplating the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being, whether it exists or not, is impossible. Understanding the nature of a god would probably require experiencing what it's like to have those same properties. (this is actually a classic argument, and it has classic counters, which themselves have classic counters, whatever, I don't really care) So to be unable to come up with answers, then to ask another mortal with limited understanding about it, and then claiming their unsatisfactory answers as proof or reassurance of any kind, is something you probably want to do with some forethought.
Anyway, Flat Earth Society, Time Cube, Magnets, how do they work, etc.
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 09, 2010, 07:25:46 pm
Flat Earth Society, Time Cube
Good reading if you need an aneurysm.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 09, 2010, 07:26:43 pm
And yeah, I do think the things God apparently does around the world are inexcusable.
That's Genesis for you: he gave us everything, and we turned out to be disobedient spoiled brats. And God was all like "Ok, then you can go find out for yourself, and if you fall, I'll pick you up." or whatever, and humans went all like WTF, if you don't catch us you're goddamned evil, you SOB, and God said "well first of all I don't have a ma so that's a bit cruel" and humans were all "oh ok that was a bit low but you're still evil" and God was like yeah, but if I gave you everything you wanted, you would all be me so what's the use and humans went all damn, he's right, but we still want it, and God said to them "Lo and behold and such, you're all me for eternity, but you get all also get memories from a miserable and great time on earth, and humans were like oh, memories, great, and God said yeah I just made em right HERE. And somewhere in the middle of those memories was this guy who slept too little and went on this awesome rant. Blink with your eyes and ten years have passed. You're just a memory.I don't think it's possible to respond to this with anything other than lolwat, to be honest.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 07:39:21 pm
First contact with aliens. Within a year, we've got the whole cultural-exchange thing going on of course, and a religious group starts introducing the aliens to the concept of the western God, explains to them all the stories, the meanings, etcetera. The aliens listen quietly until the end, then ask "And this God is a real being?" "Well, yes, of course." "Then it is the duty of every intelligent race in the universe to oppose him at any cost!"
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 07:46:39 pm
it's bigger than us, our minds aren't supposed to understand... but we're supposed to believe in it unconditionally...
supposedly it makes more sense to believe that existence was brought into existence by a sentient, intelligent, magical entity... cuz it was bored? why can't the world simply make no sense and existence itself simply be just a coincidence? i tell you why, cuz you theists are all a bunch of anthropocentrists, sentience-centrists, biocentrists... There's no right or wrong outside of human mind, no good and bad or living and dead, the universe itself doesn't care if you exist or not, but in your eyes such thing must not be possible, it is obvious a bigger, better, human mind had to be behind creation, for a great purpose that you all serve, but are doomed to not understand, because not understanding it serves the great cause better.
I'll tell you what the great cause is, it's just that, mathematically speaking, if something exists and keeps existing, it tends to exist longer than things that cease to exist or never existed in the first place, making existence a self enforcing emergent value, the only *moral* value all the objects in the universe adhere to, cuz if they didn't they wouldn't exist. Existence just needs to exist, and it will exist, while a creator needs a motivation, AND, it needs to exist. Assuming that a single requirement is easier to meet than two requirements, i think we can all agree that it is more reasonable to believe that:
-existence always existed, even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
than to believe that:
-a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
which for me is as easy to believe as:
-a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else, and it has the shape of a pink unicorn with butterfly wings and external ribs. beware of it's poisonous sting... it's impossible to disprove, and i like pink unicorns and butterflies, and poisonous stings are awesome.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 08:19:01 pm
i think we can all agree that it is more reasonable to believe that:Nope, we can't all agree.
-existence always existed, even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
than to believe that:
-a creator always existed and had a good reason to create something else even if it is hard or impossible to understand how that is possible.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 09:08:43 pm
Assuming that a single requirement is easier to meet than two requirements, i think we can all agree...*provided we're making the same assumptions
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 09:12:28 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 09:17:46 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 09:24:29 pm
I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree. So what made it pop into existence?
I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 09, 2010, 09:33:24 pm
I can't stand the religion's insistence on giving definite, populsitic answers to difficult questions.
Post by: Bauglir on December 09, 2010, 09:34:34 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 09, 2010, 09:37:30 pm
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 09:37:57 pm
I assert that discussing time-based concepts like "always", it is meaningless to discuss time outside the universe. I don't mean that I'm defining it that way because I think time is meaningless with no matter in the universe or anything, I mean that I assert that time itself did not exist prior to the universe, because time is an aspect of the space-time which comprises the universe and the universe obviously could not have existed prior to itself.Obviously, it's meaningless to discuss time outside of the universe because there is no such thing as outside of everything. ;)
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 09:49:05 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 09, 2010, 09:57:07 pm
The universe has a starting point. God is generally considered not to require a starting point. It's special pleading, but EVERYTHING is special pleading when you're talking about the start of causality.
I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree. So what made it pop into existence?
I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.
yes, but you're not addressing another point i tried to make, why would god make any more sense than pink unicorns with wings and external ribs that undulate rithmicaly?.. well, why take the less imaginative monotheistic religions when you can embrace the more colorful pantheons and mythologies? is "ok, i don't know why that happens so i'm making stuff up to explain it" really the best approach, though?
and assuming something sprang existence into existence, why assume that it was a sentient entity? what's so special about sentience that makes it older than space and time itself?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 09, 2010, 10:05:22 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 09, 2010, 10:10:17 pm
Aren't we?
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on December 09, 2010, 10:12:02 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 10:16:25 pm
Well, "I don't know why that happens so I'm making stuff up to explain it" is kind of the main way you get anywhere. You just throw out things that are stupid the first chance you get, and hold onto things that might be worth a (long) shot.The universe has a starting point. God is generally considered not to require a starting point. It's special pleading, but EVERYTHING is special pleading when you're talking about the start of causality.
I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree. So what made it pop into existence?
I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.
yes, but you're not addressing another point i tried to make, why would god make any more sense than pink unicorns with wings and external ribs that undulate rithmicaly?.. well, why take the less imaginative monotheistic religions when you can embrace the more colorful pantheons and mythologies? is "ok, i don't know why that happens so i'm making stuff up to explain it" really the best approach, though?
and assuming something sprang existence into existence, why assume that it was a sentient entity? what's so special about sentience that makes it older than space and time itself?
As for "why something sentient"-- This universe supports life. If any of a very very large number of universal constants were slightly different, it probably wouldn't. And I don't mean "life as we know it", I mean "hey where did all the atoms go". It's the watchmaker argument. Now, the watchmaker argument for intelligent design of life fails because we have a reliable history of the world. It made sense; it just didn't...you know...have much solid evidence on its side.
If this universe is the only universe, then it's incredibly, fantastically unlikely that all those variables would have even allowed the existence of matter by chance. And if this universe is the only universe that ever was, then it's not like we had a lot of chances of getting it right, like the origin of life did (a billion years, all the oceans in the world). Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...
So I figure it's one of two choices. Either A) sentient creator (where did it come from, I don't know), or B) one hell of a lot of randomly generated universes that exist in some system that is beyond our own.
In any case I don't see how atheism is the default selection over theism. Agnosticism sure, but not atheism.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 10:20:53 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 10:28:47 pm
...You're right though, if someone NEVER thinks about it at all, implicit atheism is correct.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 09, 2010, 10:31:46 pm
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 10:49:09 pm
For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope. Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 09, 2010, 10:54:49 pm
Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...
It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact. So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them. Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 11:07:30 pm
Fair enough.Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...
It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact. So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them. Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.
Big Bang :/For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope. Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.
Post by: Andir on December 09, 2010, 11:40:41 pm
Still disputed...thus the postfix "Theory"Big Bang :/For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope. Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 09, 2010, 11:44:46 pm
Quote
...then we can equally assert that the universe itself existed eternally and then one day began expanding, or been in an endless loop of expansion and contraction, or thousands of other examples.Look at that, Big Bang and Big Crunch. And the origins of the universe. All right there.
I think I've seen some quantum theories about universe interaction. You're assuming the current definition is correct. The Earth used to be defined as flat, now it isn't. Definitions are not well, definite.Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...
It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact. So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them. Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 09, 2010, 11:50:25 pm
You're assuming the current definition is correct.
The universe is basically the smallest possible closed set. If we discover some new space or phenomenon, that new thing is necessarily part of the universe. We don't know its extent (i.e. all its elements), but there is no interaction with external elements by definition.
Post by: Sowelu on December 09, 2010, 11:56:14 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 10, 2010, 12:00:49 am
We're tripping over terminology here.
There is that.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 10, 2010, 12:12:41 am
There's a few different definitions of 'universe', depending on how far out-there the scientists you listen to are. Yeah, they're sane, but a lot of them talk about hypotheses that are kind of, well, yeah. We're tripping over terminology here.I never said I actually listened to them, only that the hypotheses were out there. The universe is a strange concept in the first place. For example, how could something that includes EVERYTHING have a definite edge? Crazy stuff out there. But yes, terminology is important here.
Most of the theories I've heard involve alternate timelines (relating to quantum theories). This stuff is all completely beyond hypothetical though, so it really doesn't matter either way. It's even less useful than debating about religion :P
Post by: LordNagash on December 10, 2010, 02:00:44 am
Hehehe, if everyone chose their worldview based on the law of averages, I guess we'd all be Hindu.
330,000 gods is a lot. :P
Wikipedia claims 330 million on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities :) (and 330 000 on the main article) all about religion matches the first number. Although it should be pointed out that Hinduism is monotheistic (and also has a trinity like pretty much every other religion)
Well, not exactly. 'Hindu' is actually a whole set of different beliefs under one term, what with the fact that not only are there a few different subsets that believe different things, anyone one person can believe whatever the hell they like because there's no such thing as heresy.
Also, even in sects where they believe there's some sort of supreme being they generally accept that there are other divine beings as well.
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 04:16:09 am
Which is why I called it the most likely postion someone never learned of religion would take.Actually, it's magic. You can see it in children, and in isolated "nature-religion" tribes. "Hey, I wiggled my hand once on a full moon and my aunt got a boy instead of a girl, that must be it!". Magic being: correlating causes and effects without scientific rigor. It's pretty cool to see what they (kids) come up with. Sometimes the correlation is "true" (the use of medicinal herbs), but more often it just isn't (the use of useless herbs as if they were medicinal).
Now if you combine that with our natural need to anthropomorphise animals, objects and events, it's easy to see where "gods" come from.
Post by: Shades on December 10, 2010, 04:21:57 am
Sometimes the correlation is "true" (the use of medicinal herbs), but more often it just isn't (the use of useless herbs as if they were medicinal).
To be fair it's shocking what percentage of medicines, ones designed by science or inherited from folklore, don't perform any better than the placebo effect.
Now if you combine that with our natural need to anthropomorphise animals, objects and events, it's easy to see where "gods" come from.Or if you wanted to come up with a really good way to control a population it's easy to see where "gods" come from.
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 04:24:41 am
Or if you wanted to come up with a really good way to control a population it's easy to see where "gods" come from.Look, give a man a hammer, and he'll use it to bash in his neighbours head.
Bibles, stone tablets, religion are the same. Not created for the purpose, but well suited for it nevertheless.
Post by: Shades on December 10, 2010, 04:28:00 am
Look, give a man a hammer, and he'll use it to bash in his neighbours head.
Bibles, stone tablets, religion are the same. Not created for the purpose, but well suited for it nevertheless.
Hammers weren't created for this use but sure they can be abused. It's likely religion was, and it can also be abused to make a load of wealth too.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 10, 2010, 04:44:01 am
folklaw
Again with the folklaw. Colorful it may be, but the word you're looking for is folklore.
Post by: Shades on December 10, 2010, 04:46:43 am
folklaw
Again with the folklaw. Colorful it may be, but the word you're looking for is folklore.
Sorry, its still early (that is my excuse anyway and not the fact my spelling it atrocious, I'm surprised I didn't notice the firefox spelling thing pick it up)
Post by: Phmcw on December 10, 2010, 06:04:16 am
Not by this thread but by the new devlog, who make me think that there is a god, he's toady, and he is doing it again.
Post by: Bauglir on December 10, 2010, 11:41:13 am
Look, give a man a hammer, and he'll use it to bash in his neighbours head.
Bibles, stone tablets, religion are the same. Not created for the purpose, but well suited for it nevertheless.
Hammers weren't created for this use but sure they can be abused. It's likely religion was, and it can also be abused to make a load of wealth too.
I disagree, honestly. Of course, many religions probably were, and their codification into most of the large organizations they've become also was likely done for this reason, but I don't see any reason to assume the concept of religious belief was created for control. I suppose, how're you defining religion? Is it just a nice term for superstition or what?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 10, 2010, 02:54:06 pm
I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.Yeah, I agree. The turtle at the bottom of the stack has no reason to fall.
Now if you combine that with our natural need to anthropomorphise animals, objects and events, it's easy to see where "gods" come from.I'd... probably agree. With a monotheistic God, one who is an embodiment of everything, being the final step of that.
Post by: fqllve on December 10, 2010, 03:14:45 pm
Hammers weren't created for this use but sure they can be abused. It's likely religion was, and it can also be abused to make a load of wealth too.
Firstly, not all control is oppressive. For the most part social control is enforced through norms and exists only to smooth the process of social interaction. So when you say that religion was likely created for control I can't agree with that because it implies that it was created for oppression and power.
One of the goals of religion is social control, but that doesn't necessarily mean a tyranny.
Organized religion on the other hand, like the Roman Catholic Church, yeah, that was very likely created to exercise power, and has been used to those ends throughout history. Religion itself is much older than that though.
Post by: Micro102 on December 10, 2010, 03:23:23 pm
Which is why I called it the most likely postion someone never learned of religion would take.Actually, it's magic. You can see it in children, and in isolated "nature-religion" tribes. "Hey, I wiggled my hand once on a full moon and my aunt got a boy instead of a girl, that must be it!". Magic being: correlating causes and effects without scientific rigor. It's pretty cool to see what they (kids) come up with. Sometimes the correlation is "true" (the use of medicinal herbs), but more often it just isn't (the use of useless herbs as if they were medicinal).
Now if you combine that with our natural need to anthropomorphise animals, objects and events, it's easy to see where "gods" come from.
Actually I have personally experienced a few moments of "magic". I threw a fit one day begging my mom not to let the cat out. It probably would of been the thousandth time he'd be let out, so there was no reason for my to throw such a fit (I was like, 8). She let him out anyway and on the way home we found him ran over :(
Sad story but the point is the chances of that happening are extremely rare and only seem to happen to children. I really don't believe in esp or anything but experience has told me otherwise.
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 03:30:59 pm
Sad story but the point is the chances of that happening are extremely rare and only seem to happen to children. I really don't believe in esp or anything but experience has told me otherwise.That stuff happens all the time, but until you can reliably repeat it, it was probably nothing. Your mind wants to believe otherwise though, superstition is somehow ingrained in us.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2010, 03:40:13 pm
It's not "somehow" ingrained. Magical Thinking is a vital sign of mental growth in children from about ages 6-12. That's why they believe in Santa Claus and the like. After that, they'll tend to become more skeptical and discard their superstitious beliefs unless conditioned to do otherwise, which may stunt said mental growth by not moving to the next step.Sad story but the point is the chances of that happening are extremely rare and only seem to happen to children. I really don't believe in esp or anything but experience has told me otherwise.That stuff happens all the time, but until you can reliably repeat it, it was probably nothing. Your mind wants to believe otherwise though, superstition is somehow ingrained in us.
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 03:45:12 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2010, 03:48:54 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 10, 2010, 03:51:00 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 03:58:26 pm
Did you care about ethics or politics when you were eight years old? Of course not.Ethics and politics are definitely not the summit of mental growth. Politics, especially, that's more like mental (My english fails me here. Mental shrinking sounds too therapist, mental degradation sounds too much like a sports team that just didn't make it, mental declination, mental degeneration!) degeneration. See, even letting me think about it already affects my mad language skillzz.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 10, 2010, 04:55:25 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 10, 2010, 05:14:12 pm
Did you care about ethics or politics when you were eight years old? Of course not.Ethics and politics are definitely not the summit of mental growth. Politics, especially, that's more like mental (My english fails me here. Mental shrinking sounds too therapist, mental degradation sounds too much like a sports team that just didn't make it, mental declination, mental degeneration!) degeneration. See, even letting me think about it already affects my mad language skillzz.
I'd say they're higher levels of thought, though, than an 8-year-old can handle. Or, possibly, than an 8-year-old wants to handle. Well, ok, not all of politics is. A lot of it does involve pretty childish name-calling and blameshifting. Ethics and morals, though. I know a child's definition of "fair" changes as one gets older, for instance; I, and most children I knew (and I'm given to understand this is a wider trend, but I can't cite anything), at one point thought it was only fair if everyone was treated absolutely identically, but later on the notion that people ought to be rewarded in proportion to their contributions became more relevant, and I think that kind of situationalism is probably a higher degree of thought on the matter.
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 05:38:02 pm
I, and most children I knew (and I'm given to understand this is a wider trend, but I can't cite anything), at one point thought it was only fair if everyone was treated absolutely identically, but later on the notion that people ought to be rewarded in proportion to their contributions became more relevant, and I think that kind of situationalism is probably a higher degree of thought on the matter.Personally, I think that's spoonfed ethics. But yes, 8-years olds do practice playground-politics and ethics.
If only they got better at it when they grow up...
Post by: fqllve on December 10, 2010, 05:51:29 pm
Or, at least they get better at abstracting it. And in some ways, many ways, that makes our ethics in practice worse. But it also allows us to consider more of the effects of our ethical positions. And it also makes them more consistent.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 10, 2010, 05:58:55 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 10, 2010, 06:01:20 pm
And it also makes them more consistent.I regard that as a bad thing. If you can't change your mind, you can't learn.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 10, 2010, 06:03:20 pm
It has nothing to do with mind changing, it has everything to do with forming a static stance on the issues that can go an hour without changing radically because you want cookies.And it also makes them more consistent.I regard that as a bad thing. If you can't change your mind, you can't learn.
Post by: fqllve on December 10, 2010, 06:06:47 pm
Says nothing about their willingness to not be a hypocrite though.
Post by: Micro102 on December 10, 2010, 08:02:55 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 10, 2010, 08:09:54 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 10, 2010, 08:29:06 pm
Post by: Shades on December 11, 2010, 05:50:43 am
Actually I have personally experienced a few moments of "magic". I threw a fit one day begging my mom not to let the cat out. It probably would of been the thousandth time he'd be let out, so there was no reason for my to throw such a fit (I was like, 8). She let him out anyway and on the way home we found him ran over :(
Sad story but the point is the chances of that happening are extremely rare and only seem to happen to children. I really don't believe in esp or anything but experience has told me otherwise.
But if you were to put a number on the chance and compare it to how many time sit happens.... Hell that is science and would support the theory just as much as people support the Big Bang
The number you need to compare is how many times you threw a fit and nothing happened or something happened when you didn't throw a fit. Don't forget people don't remember common events only uncommon ones and so when you look back at your life it's the low chance things that are still clear.
Post by: Micro102 on December 11, 2010, 02:38:40 pm
Get like, 1000 parents to monitor their child's activity.
Post by: Siquo on December 11, 2010, 04:41:35 pm
The number you need to compare is how many times you threw a fit and nothing happened or something happened when you didn't throw a fit. Don't forget people don't remember common events only uncommon ones and so when you look back at your life it's the low chance things that are still clear.Yeah, the whole "It happens so often that I think of someone and then that someone calls me! I must be psychic or something!"-thing. I'm not saying it isn't true, it's just that it A: probably happens less than you think and B: unless you can make accurate predictions with it, it's a pretty useless 20/20-hindsight-skill. Like praying.
Post by: Micro102 on December 11, 2010, 05:01:55 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 11, 2010, 05:07:31 pm
I mean, you were eight at the time right? You might have had a reason for throwing the fit that you don't remember.
Post by: Micro102 on December 11, 2010, 05:36:25 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 11, 2010, 05:55:45 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 11, 2010, 06:29:10 pm
? But I do remember it. I just suddenly didn't want my mom to let the cat out and screamed for her not to let him.He means, how many "fits" did you have as a child that you don't remember because they didn't have such a dramatic outcome?
Post by: Micro102 on December 11, 2010, 06:35:08 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 11, 2010, 06:45:57 pm
That's why I say run an experiment.
How? How could that situation be experimentally reproduced?
Post by: Bauglir on December 11, 2010, 06:56:39 pm
That's why I say run an experiment.
How? How could that situation be experimentally reproduced?
I'm going to need 100 beloved pets and an automobile.
Post by: fqllve on December 11, 2010, 07:10:41 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 02:22:00 pm
Give some parents 100 dollars in exchange for a paper of records?
Post by: Bauglir on December 12, 2010, 03:24:04 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2010, 03:25:26 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 05:01:42 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 12, 2010, 05:06:03 pm
Doesn't have to be pets, just extremely coincidental fits compared to fits where nothing happens. Only fits where the child says not to do something are recorded....
Give some parents 100 dollars in exchange for a paper of records?
So, basically, get parents to make up stories in return for money?
Post by: fqllve on December 12, 2010, 05:21:12 pm
Post by: smjjames on December 12, 2010, 05:22:50 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 06:34:38 pm
And even if every single parent was completely honest. Even if you found statistically significant incidence of clairvoyance. It wouldn't prove anything because there's no evidence other than "yeah, this totally happened."Hey, more reliable then God or the big bang theory.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 12, 2010, 06:41:14 pm
Hey, more reliable then God or the big bang theory.
Oh no he di'n't!
Post by: fqllve on December 12, 2010, 06:47:32 pm
Hey, more reliable then God or the big bang theory.
Oh no he di'n't!
He did.
Uh, you know about the Cosmic Background Radiation right?
That proves the Big Bang Theory a lot better than the anecdotal accounts of a bunch of parents would prove clairvoyance in children.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 12, 2010, 06:52:44 pm
Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive :PHey, more reliable then God or the big bang theory.
Oh no he di'n't!
He did.
Uh, you know about the Cosmic Background Radiation right?
That proves the Big Bang Theory a lot better than the anecdotal accounts of a bunch of parents would prove clairvoyance in children.
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 07:10:18 pm
And I don't think God and the big bang are mutually exclusive. This is an atheism thread though.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 12, 2010, 07:11:47 pm
Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.What.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2010, 07:13:00 pm
Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.Except that doesn't work. There's a low level of radiation everywhere in the universe that seems to all be coming from a single point. This suggests a Big Bang.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 12, 2010, 07:15:00 pm
Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.
I don't understand it so it doesn't count, guys.
Except that doesn't work. There's a low level of radiation everywhere in the universe that seems to all be coming from a single point. This suggests a Big Bang.
It's not coming from a single point. It's by all appearances omnidirectional.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 12, 2010, 07:15:19 pm
Another one of those "I don't understand/haven't aquainted myself with the theory, therefore it's stupid".Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.What.
No, John, you are the demons.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 12, 2010, 07:30:27 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 12, 2010, 07:34:10 pm
Well... how does "black holes redirecting lightwaves" explain anything about background radiation at all?Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.What.
e: (ah, sorry, I just wanted to echo the question)
It's not coming from a single point. It's by all appearances omnidirectional.Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.Except that doesn't work. There's a low level of radiation everywhere in the universe that seems to all be coming from a single point. This suggests a Big Bang.
That is why it's evidence for a big bang.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 12, 2010, 07:39:49 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 08:10:12 pm
Actually it comes from all different directions, not from a single point.Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.Except that doesn't work. There's a low level of radiation everywhere in the universe that seems to all be coming from a single point. This suggests a Big Bang.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2010, 08:13:40 pm
My derp was all ready pointed out. You have yet to explain how your hypothesis works at all.Actually it comes from all different directions, not from a single point.Why does a bunch of random energy everywhere support the big bang? I could just as easily say that it's due to black holes redirecting light waves.Except that doesn't work. There's a low level of radiation everywhere in the universe that seems to all be coming from asingle point.This suggests a Big Bang.
Post by: Micro102 on December 12, 2010, 10:44:32 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 12, 2010, 10:46:37 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 12, 2010, 11:10:17 pm
The idea of BB came into existence as a result of Hubble's discovery of the universe's expansion(red shift), and the mathematical predictions of General Relativity(e.g. the singularity, the possible shapes and sizes of the universe), which has been already validated by then.
This model predicted that some remnant radiation from the time when the universe was very young(hot and dense, but already cooled enough to stop being opaque) should be detectable, and according to the measurements of Hubble's constant, correspond in energy levels to the radiation emitted by a "black body" at ~5K.
And voila! A couple decades later, it was observed(albeit at 2,7K).
That was not the moment of inception of the BB theory - it was the moment of it's validation*.
*meaning of course that it gained scientific weight, not that it became "true".
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 12:06:06 am
Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive :P
The big bang would allow a god if it was:
1. a deist god (as in, he created the universe than never did anything else within it),
2. a lazy god (a big bang requires no energy input, and is incredibly inefficient with a life/empty space ratio)
Thus while it doesn't exactly exclude any god, it does exclude an active christian god (or any of the other religions gods).
That's because their minds have yet to reach the next level of growth. They cannot comprehend it. Did you care about ethics or politics when you were eight years old? Of course not. None of us did, because we weren't old enough to truly get the ideas.
I really really hope I never think I'm at the peak of my mental growth. That would be very depressing. Since elementary school I've hoped to be the guy that's 80 years old, bald, with a long white beard sitting on a hill and still giving people insights into the world.
My family doesn't grow beards very well, and we don't go bald, so to continue learning and being insightsful is the last hope I have.
Post by: Criptfeind on December 13, 2010, 12:17:01 am
Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive :P
The big bang would allow a god if it was:
1. a deist god (as in, he created the universe than never did anything else within it),
2. a lazy god (a big bang requires no energy input, and is incredibly inefficient with a life/empty space ratio)
Thus while it doesn't exactly exclude any god, it does exclude an active christian god (or any of the other religions gods).
Here in lays a misconception. Not all religions are fundamental. In my old church it was thought of as in this example that god made the world (though the BB or what ever) and still plays a active role. Everything is to a plan, it made the BB in the way it did so that life would arise.
Religion is as malleable as science, there is just more acceptance of the parts that do not change.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 13, 2010, 12:18:57 am
Again with the generalizations...Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive :P
The big bang would allow a god if it was:
1. a deist god (as in, he created the universe than never did anything else within it),
2. a lazy god (a big bang requires no energy input, and is incredibly inefficient with a life/empty space ratio)
Thus while it doesn't exactly exclude any god, it does exclude an active christian god (or any of the other religions gods).
A god could have simply popped into existence AFTER the universe started. Or a god could have "caused" the big bang. Even the Christian god can be applied to this, except for the fundamentalist's version I guess. Or a god could simply be apathetic, or representing a natural force (in the latter, it'd also come into existence), and simply be there, doing this or that. Nobody said a god actually had to DO something with their power. There is literally no limit when you're talking about religion (the line has to be drawn somewhere though).
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 04:55:48 am
It's about as likely as any other god theory.
Post by: Cthulhu on December 13, 2010, 08:28:37 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 08:46:50 am
Again with the generalizations...Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive :P
The big bang would allow a god if it was:
1. a deist god (as in, he created the universe than never did anything else within it),
2. a lazy god (a big bang requires no energy input, and is incredibly inefficient with a life/empty space ratio)
Thus while it doesn't exactly exclude any god, it does exclude an active christian god (or any of the other religions gods).
A god could have simply popped into existence AFTER the universe started. Or a god could have "caused" the big bang. Even the Christian god can be applied to this, except for the fundamentalist's version I guess. Or a god could simply be apathetic, or representing a natural force (in the latter, it'd also come into existence), and simply be there, doing this or that. Nobody said a god actually had to DO something with their power. There is literally no limit when you're talking about religion (the line has to be drawn somewhere though).
To this and others...
In all honesty, what god-like characteristics are left? Since we agree that the deist god can still theoretically exist (though is relatively boring), what characteristics of the well known gods could still exist? If he does exist, and matters to us in any way, then he is measurable in some form. Thus disproving his existence requires further definition of what his existence is.
We know, for example, that prayer does not cause improved recovery from dozens of terminal illnesses (and recover worse if they know they're being prayed for, like performance anxiety). We know a lot of the characteristics that have been applied to an existent god have been dis-proven over time, and I personally can't think of any left that matter to the human species.
While the proposition that we can not prove a negative exists, we can prove a negative under certain conditions. While I can't prove that an undefined being exists somewhere, I can say that under the conditions of the universe that we have observed and the theories of a relevant god that have been presented, we have proven each theory false or meaningless.
An all powerful god could have popped into existence shortly after I think I started typing this message and mearly created the universe just then with all the reassuring back story to make me think I've been living a life all these years when really it's just how she created the memories in my brain. Likewise for the rest of you.
It's about as likely as any other god theory.
I'm a bit late to the party, but let me try to dissuade this brain-in-a-jar philosophy
- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)
- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.
- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.
-Thus complex interactions would still happen, that have nothing to do with me in any way.
- If it is constructed for me, then there would be far less complex interactions between others when I am not around. Wars, politics, engineering, and so forth that I am incapable of understanding would not happen.
- If they have complex interactions when I am not around, then they are just as complex as me, which makes them being constructs of a higher being a moot point, since I fit the same definition.
- If people in general exist, but the world is created around us by a collective conscious, then our collective beliefs would cause the complex conclusions of scientific experiments.
- Thus our expectations would more often be validated, rather than disproven.
- We would have proved long ago that diseases are caused my the balance of 4 bodily humors, that light and spirit travel in ether, and the human soul would weighs 21 grams. These were all dominant theories for a very long time.
- If the people in general exist, and the world is created around us by yet another being, then there would be some focus to the creation (as their must be for it to be called a creation rather than a byproduct or waste product).
- If the world is created around people, and the focus is us, then the creator is blind and dumb. He would have to be to think any of our designs as good designs.
- Waste disposal does not go next to vital-for-life continuation
- Eyes should not have blood vessels over the very things that sense light
- dozens of other examples if you need them
- If the world is created around us, and the focus is not us
- Then every deity whos focus IS us is incompatible with the universe we see.
So thus we come to these conclusions
- Our consciousness's, the only things we can be sure exist, are not complex enough to create the experiences we have
- Even if our consciousness was complex enough to create experiences, they would not agree with the world we actually do experience
- Every form of existence that requires a continually made construct around us would necessitate several things
1. That the senses we have are continuously updated with science-consistent information
2. That the creator is worse at engineering than humans are
I find those propositions incompatible with a brain-in-a-jar scenario.
Edit: I'm not satisfied with "it's unlikely", as I personally think that a meaningful god is, in general, disproven. We can always create a new version of go that fits with verifiable evidence, but it is a weaker concept each time. I think we can cut down the concept until nothing left exists in any meaningful way.
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 09:05:47 am
- If it is constructed for me, then there would be far less complex interactions between others when I am not around. Wars, politics, engineering, and so forth that I am incapable of understanding would not happen.
- Thus our expectations would more often be validated, rather than disproven.
- We would have proved long ago that diseases are caused my the balance of 4 bodily humors, that light and spirit travel in ether, and the human soul would weighs 21 grams. These were all dominant theories for a very long time.
- Our consciousness's, the only things we can be sure exist, are not complex enough to create the experiences we have
- Even if our consciousness was complex enough to create experiences, they would not agree with the world we actually do experience
- Every form of existence that requires a continually made construct around us would necessitate several things
1. That the senses we have are continuously updated with science-consistent information
None of the above conclusions actually follow from your stated arguments.
- Eyes should not have blood vessels over the very things that sense light
As an aside not all eyes do, but I agree the human eye is generally a bad design. One of many.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 09:09:49 am
If a world is constructed for an observer, and is more complex then the observer itself, then what's to say that the observer exists any more than the construction? That's true even from the observers perspective I think.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 09:30:23 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 09:31:52 am
You're too philosophical, malimbar04. Just do as we all do, and start a flamewar or something. Alternatively, you can post something obviously stupid, so that we here can feel superior and clever.
Lol. But I'm not as good at flame wars.
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 09:37:31 am
None of it follows? really? I'm rereading it and I'm not seeing the fault.
All the unstated ifs and assumptions. You start this assumption, which although a reply to my quote isn't even close the conclusion of that philosophy (although is to the unrelated brain in the jar set you mention)
- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)
You then follow this up with
- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.
Which doesn't follow at all even if the first conclusion is true. You've added others assumptions in there, at the very least that perceived intelligence is as real and perceived intelligence exists.
The next line you have is:
- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.
Why does the conclusion there follow the assumption. Just because they exist separately doesn't mean they stop or otherwise when you can perceive them.
As the rest of your trail builds up on these I'll stop here because it should be clear how your logic is failing.
Of course all this ignores the fact I'm not even sure what your trying to show here, possibly your commenting on a post a way back in the thread?
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 10:12:38 am
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html
(I only recognize Dawkins, who are the other three?)
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 10:19:43 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 10:44:19 am
Forgive me in my ignorance, but I still don't quite see the failing. Maybe if I explain the first parts with what assumptions I'm basing my conclusions on? Maybe you could tell me what faulty assumptions I have that I don't realize? I'll repeat the parts you quoted more in depth, because you're right that we can't progress if the basic assumptions are not accepted.- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)
You then follow this up with- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.
Which doesn't follow at all even if the first conclusion is true. You've added others assumptions in there, at the very least that perceived intelligence is as real and perceived intelligence exists.
The next line you have is:- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.
Why does the conclusion there follow the assumption. Just because they exist separately doesn't mean they stop or otherwise when you can perceive them.
As the rest of your trail builds up on these I'll stop here because it should be clear how your logic is failing.
Of course all this ignores the fact I'm not even sure what your trying to show here, possibly your commenting on a post a way back in the thread?
Assumption 1.1: The only way we can measure anything with perception (in the definition of perception)
Assumption 1.2: Because I can measure anything, I have perception (self evident in the definition)
Conclusion 1: My perception exists,
Assumption 2.2: I have intelligence (being processing capability of the standard of human)
Conclusion 2: I exist (as defined by my measure of processing capability and perception)
Everything comes from those, and then testing various theories against it.
Assumption 1.1: I have intelligence (as defined above), and my perception exists (as defined above)
Assumption 1.2: The existence of intelligence and perception define existence of an intelligent/perceptive entity
Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false
Assumption 2.1: (same as 1.1)
Assumption 2.2: Other people have the same characteristics of intelligence and perception that I have (as evidenced by test 1)
Conclusion 2: As far as I exist (as far as I can measure), so do other people
I'll stop here unless further request. I also assume I have a form of memory, and we can copy the same logic to test that others have memory as well (ask them a question which you do no know the answer but can figure out. If they figure out the conclusion seperately and report back, you prove they have memory. The proof is in the fact that they reported back, since we already know they are capable of processing and perception. Should I continue my line of reasoning, or are there already unforgivable flaws that I don't see?
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 10:45:03 am
Probably Daniel Dennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett), Sam Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29) and Christopher Hitchens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens)Definitely, They call themselves the four horsemen.
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 11:01:45 am
Assumption 1.1: The only way we can measure anything with perception (in the definition of perception)
Assumption 1.2: Because I can measure anything, I have perception (self evident in the definition)
Conclusion 1: My perception exists,
Assumption 2.2: I have intelligence (being processing capability of the standard of human)
Conclusion 2: I exist (as defined by my measure of processing capability and perception)
Although it's not really a conclusion as your not testing anything. It is part of the definition which leads me back to accepting these as a base assumptions. This is really a nit picky terminology thing. These are your basic starting assumptions.
Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false
How does this test disprove assumption 1.4? This seems like a leap of logic, unless your assuming the only way you can get an unexpected reply is from outside influence, but then your almost using your conclusion to prove itself. What are you actually trying to show here?
It looks like your trying to prove the whole of existence isn't just in your head?
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 11:28:06 am
Here I am testing to see if the "other people" fit the same definition of existence that my own existence. Up to this point I've accepted that I exist based only on the fact that I can perceive and that I can process information. If other people can perceive and process information, then they would also fit the definition. Up to this point am not addressing whether it's in my head or not, only whether they fit the same definition as I do.Assumption 1.3(testing): The reality that I experience is non-existent, and given to me falsely from without
Assumption 1.4(testing): Other people are part of this non-existence
Conclusion 1 (testing): Other people have no perception or processing capability
Test: Ask other people questions, if they perceive and process this information (evidenced by their unexpected reply), then Assumption 1.4 is false
How does this test disprove assumption 1.4? This seems like a leap of logic, unless your assuming the only way you can get an unexpected reply is from outside influence, but then your almost using your conclusion to prove itself. What are you actually trying to show here?
It looks like your trying to prove the whole of existence isn't just in your head?
So a person, in order to exist insofar as I exist to this point, needs to qualify 2 criteria:
- percieve information
- process information
If I ask them a question, such as "do you have any children", then in order to respond they must fit both. They must perceive the question, perceive the meaning behind it, process the meaning, rely on other information to which I am not privy, and reply in a way that is comprehensible to me. Up to this point, I am not testing their knowledge, their honesty, or anything besides their ability to do the two things which define existence outside of myself.
Post by: Shades on December 13, 2010, 11:34:11 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 12:04:10 pm
In that case I misunderstood your wording for existence outside of yourself and agree your test is valid. Although with the limited conclusion I'm not sure it proves anything useful :)
Not yet, which is where the rest of it comes in! If we're on the level of the absolute basics, I'll continue with what I hope are small steps in logic.
Assumption 1.1: I can perceive and process information, thus I exist
Assumption 1.2: I have a store of information from which I draw information (evident by my ability to process information that I am not perceiving)
Assumption 1.3 (testing): I can contribute to this store of information, thus making it a form of memory
Alternative assumption 1.3 (testing): I can not contribute information to this store, as it is given from without
Test: Process some sort of benign information, then process it again later. For example, attempt to process the equation of (5* 20/400)+3. If you don't know the result instantly, the information is not yet in your memory store. When processed, it equals 100/400 +3 or 3.25. Purposely remember the result, and then perform the test again later, remembering, then processing, and then comparing results to memory.
Whether or not the "outside source" of information takes your memory and gives it back to you isn't the point, as it was still contributed by you, and wasn't there before you processed it. This does not prove that the outside source does not exist, but it should prove that you can at least contribute to your store of information, making it memory.
Shall I continue?
Post by: Cthulhu on December 13, 2010, 03:23:01 pm
I'll just drop it here:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html
(I only recognize Dawkins, who are the other three?)
Ugh jeez, Subnormality. Guy needs to just write essays or something.
Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships. None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.
Post by: fqllve on December 13, 2010, 03:46:35 pm
I'll just drop it here:Ugh jeez, Subnormality. Guy needs to just write essays or something.
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html
Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships. None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.
I think the stupidest part is the newspaper headline that reads "1 in 4 US Teen Girls has STDs" in panel 1 changes to "1 in 400" in the last panel.
Because yeah, religion cause teen promiscuity and STDs.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 03:50:16 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 13, 2010, 03:56:13 pm
Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 04:01:51 pm
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 13, 2010, 04:06:32 pm
But the religion claims to know the ultimate truth, so how can it change it's mind when faced with inconvenient developments?Exactly, I couldn't have put it better in any way.
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.
Post by: Bauglir on December 13, 2010, 04:07:46 pm
Post by: Ephemeriis on December 13, 2010, 04:09:50 pm
Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.
Science is a process, not a book. It makes no claims about absolute truth. Science is about testing theories and refining them until they stop breaking. And then finding new ways to break them.
No scientific text is ever going to claim to be 100% infallible. No scientific text is ever going to claim that you'll be condemned to an eternity of damnation if you have the temerity to question its contents.
Religion, on the other hand, claims absolute truth. You've got various religious texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago that claim they're 100% right. And you'll suffer horribly if you question them. And you've got folks alive today who claim that hundreds if not thousands of real, repeatable, observable tests are wrong - because a dusty old religious book says so.
Post by: Sinned on December 13, 2010, 04:16:30 pm
But the religion claims to know the ultimate truth, so how can it change it's mind when faced with inconvenient developments?
Science claims that it's trying to find the truths, so changing it's mind to fit new developments is not only allowed, but necessary.
Well put.
Science changes it's mind when theories are proven, not when (generalizing here ;) ) an old man goes... "What god meant to say here!!!! <fill in new interpreted passage from holy book>" for whatever reason fits his or "sects" agenda.
Post by: Siquo on December 13, 2010, 04:33:16 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 04:35:41 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 13, 2010, 04:37:34 pm
See? And even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its mind a few times about for instance the shape and movement of the earth in the face of overwhelming evidence. And still it's regarded as a bad thing.
Well duh, because religion is a Bad Ting and therefore everything it does is bad, even if it's good.
Post by: Andir on December 13, 2010, 04:37:50 pm
See? And even the Roman Catholic Church has changed its mind a few times about for instance the shape and movement of the earth in the face of overwhelming evidence. And still it's regarded as a bad thing.But they keep putting out the same book!
I think it's time for a new revised version without all the stuff that has been changed taken out. It will save cost (and trees) as well, considering it will now be about 50 pages.
Post by: Dasleah on December 13, 2010, 04:43:55 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 13, 2010, 04:46:27 pm
Because if it's no longer a reliable provider of Ultimate TruthTM, then what's it's selling point?Hmm. I think "answers you can believe in".
If the (details of the) answers become unbelievable, they need adjustment. That's what science does. And science has a lot of things, but never answers (unless misinterpreted), and people look for answers, hence the need for religion.
the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug assholeOr genuine.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 04:50:10 pm
malimbar, shall I let Descartes continue? ;) (That's a theist joke)
Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.
:)
So that's who the brain in the jar guy was. So am I Discartes here, or am I his opponent?
The more I think about it and read about it and talk about it, the more I'm convinced that we could actually prove that god doesn't exist. Well, maybe not EVERY god, but certainly all of the gods that have any effect on the world in any way. I still can't prove that a lazy, powerless, and dumb god doesn't exists, as long as it doesn't claim to create the universe or meddle in human affairs.
Though, maybe strangely, I think it's a good things religions evolve. Ideally I'd want religion to turn into a sam-harris-like construct, doing some of the same things but attributing the experiences to something naturalistic.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 13, 2010, 04:51:09 pm
Ugh jeez, Subnormality. Guy needs to just write essays or something.I'm no expert, but isn't that meant to be ironic? On an LCS kindof level.
Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships. None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.
the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug assholeIntentionally or not, this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 04:54:54 pm
Don't worry, everybody's got a mancrush on Dasleah. Even women.the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug assholeIntentionally or not, this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 05:04:07 pm
I'll just drop it here:Ugh jeez, Subnormality. Guy needs to just write essays or something.
http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html
Also, three cheers for more misplaced causal relationships. None of those things would go away if religion were gone, they'd just find a new outlet.
I think the stupidest part is the newspaper headline that reads "1 in 4 US Teen Girls has STDs" in panel 1 changes to "1 in 400" in the last panel.
Because yeah, religion cause teen promiscuity and STDs.
Haha, I didn't notice all the things in the background. That's good stuff. If you're nitpicky enough to see that, then why would the price drop? 13cents/lb to 13cents/kg is a huge price drop for onions.
Post by: fqllve on December 13, 2010, 05:06:46 pm
I'm no expert, but isn't that meant to be ironic? On an LCS kindof level.
I dunno, the last panel confuses it. Their tirades are so over the top that yeah, it seems satirical, but the last panel makes it seem like the joke is really "haha look at how serious and grim these guys are about the really good things that are about to happen."
Haha, I didn't notice all the things in the background. That's good stuff. If you're nitpicky enough to see that, then why would the price drop? 13cents/lb to 13cents/kg is a huge price drop for onions.
Actually, I think that sign gag is hilarious, not the price drop, but the change from imperial to metric.
Post by: Siquo on December 13, 2010, 05:13:02 pm
... You're kidding me, right?malimbar, shall I let Descartes continue? ;) (That's a theist joke)
Also humourous: When Science changes its mind it's a Good Thing, when Religion does to escape nitpickers, it's being evasive.
:)
So that's who the brain in the jar guy was. So am I Discartes here, or am I his opponent?
Alright, some enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) for you (including criticism that refutes your similar thoughts). Also, the solution to the theist joke is in meditations III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy).
Unless your post was as Dasleah described it, but basing my interpretations on that assumption makes it impossible to hold any kind of conversation here.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 13, 2010, 05:15:19 pm
I dunno, the last panel confuses it. Their tirades are so over the top that yeah, it seems satirical, but the last panel makes it seem like the joke is really "haha look at how serious and grim these guys are about the really good things that are about to happen."Well, I think that's to say "They aren't gonna destroy us all, but they aren't gonna fix all our problems". Or something.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 13, 2010, 05:38:10 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 13, 2010, 05:42:54 pm
Post by: Glowcat on December 13, 2010, 05:46:16 pm
I'm a bit late to the party, but let me try to dissuade this brain-in-a-jar philosophy.
The biggest problem I can see with Solipsism is that, for reasons similar to what you covered, whether the universe exists independently or not it functions exactly the same as if it were independent and physical. To any external observer they would be indistinguishable... so while possible there's little point in considering the brain-in-a-jar scenario as it changes nothing about how we discover the universe we are living within.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 13, 2010, 05:52:02 pm
The biggest problem I can see with Solipsism is that, for reasons similar to what you covered, whether the universe exists independently or not it functions exactly the same as if it were independent and physical. To any external observer they would be indistinguishable... so while possible there's little point in considering the brain-in-a-jar scenario as it changes nothing about how we discover the universe we are living within.
Unfalsifiable therefore unimportant?
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 13, 2010, 05:53:38 pm
If I am, it's a very nice jar.
Post by: Glowcat on December 13, 2010, 06:22:01 pm
Unfalsifiable therefore unimportant?
Pretty much. However if this reality were an elaborate pseudo-dream set-up it would be easily falsifiable by waking up.
Trying to figure out the difference before then would be chasing an Absolute Truth, something which I regard as a fool's pursuit. If I cannot observe or reason towards a goal then there is nothing to pursue. There's just an infinite supply of what-ifs.
Post by: Andir on December 13, 2010, 07:39:25 pm
Except, it's a rather negative statement. Of the three choices, none of them is "genuinely feel that way" except idiot... Personally, I think that post in itself falls into the last group.the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug assholeIntentionally or not, this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 13, 2010, 07:43:01 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 13, 2010, 08:32:49 pm
I'm a bit late to the party, but let me try to dissuade this brain-in-a-jar philosophy.
The biggest problem I can see with Solipsism is that, for reasons similar to what you covered, whether the universe exists independently or not it functions exactly the same as if it were independent and physical. To any external observer they would be indistinguishable... so while possible there's little point in considering the brain-in-a-jar scenario as it changes nothing about how we discover the universe we are living within.
Exactly what I was trying to say! :) I like philosophy, but I don't know the history nor do I care all too much. I just want to know how the lightbulb works, not the half-baked theories that lead to it. For example, I have no reason to know that a few hundred years ago they believed in four bodily humors. It wouldn't help me diagnose or treat a patient with cancer.
Although... there is also the problem that this outside construct is not defined. Simply saying that "I can't know for sure how my consciousness gathers information, for it could all be an illusion" just pushes the problem back. If we continue to put possibilities on the table, we could disprove them by the artifacts each would generate. A fleeting dream of a butterfly, for example, would be limited by the purely physical limitations of a butterfly's brain.
Post by: Dasleah on December 13, 2010, 09:23:15 pm
I'm a smug asshole, and I'm right about bashing religion.
hey pal that's my schtick
the worst part about atheism threads is that you genuinely can't distinguish between someone being sarcastic, an idiot, or just a smug assholeExcept, it's a rather negative statement. Of the three choices, none of them is "genuinely feel that way" except idiot... Personally, I think that post in itself falls into the last group.
ha ha check out this guy
what an act
Post by: Leafsnail on December 13, 2010, 10:05:47 pm
Personally, I think that post in itself falls into the last group.Therein lies the beauty.
Post by: Dakk on December 13, 2010, 10:26:48 pm
Spoiler: Shit guys, God exists. (click to show/hide)
And he has the humor of a /b/tard.
That explains alot actualy.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 13, 2010, 10:32:19 pm
hehehehehaeImacrazypersonqwqwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenesbitteatime
Seriously, though, that doens't prove anything other than 4chan's unfathomably bad luck.
Post by: Dakk on December 13, 2010, 10:48:59 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 13, 2010, 10:51:00 pm
Er, excuse me.
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 06:20:29 am
I like philosophy, but I don't know the history nor do I care all too much.Then you like to philosophise, not philosophy. The main reason why I quit studying philosophy was too many fellow students with that same idea (resulting in fights over who gets to spout his own theories instead of shutting up and let the teacher teach). Suffice to say: even the ancient philosophers have said quite a few things that are now still relevant, and you can presume that all of them (well, the famous ones) were smarter than any of us. Not wanting to learn is pretty dumb, by my definition. Calling them half-baked without knowledge of what you're talking about is even worse.
Post by: Shades on December 14, 2010, 06:54:14 am
Not wanting to learn is pretty dumb, by my definition. Calling them half-baked without knowledge of what you're talking about is even worse.
It's even worth learning the half-baked theories too because otherwise you'll probably end up thinking along those lines without realising why they were wrong.
<insert your favourite those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it quote here>
Post by: malimbar04 on December 14, 2010, 09:01:45 am
You win, I like to philosophise. Sorry people like me made you quit studying the history of philosophy (other people who philosophised by the way).I like philosophy, but I don't know the history nor do I care all too much.Then you like to philosophise, not philosophy. The main reason why I quit studying philosophy was too many fellow students with that same idea (resulting in fights over who gets to spout his own theories instead of shutting up and let the teacher teach). Suffice to say: even the ancient philosophers have said quite a few things that are now still relevant, and you can presume that all of them (well, the famous ones) were smarter than any of us. Not wanting to learn is pretty dumb, by my definition. Calling them half-baked without knowledge of what you're talking about is even worse.
While I'm on the subject, is there anything from any of these 'great philosophisers' that we can actually build on? Is there anything, for example, that says we exist? If not, I no longer wonder why science has overshadowed philosophy for progress.
BTW, I definately fit into the smug asshole version, and depending on your perspective the idiot version as well :)
Also BTW, Calling them smarter than us is I think slightly presumptuous. Intelligence isn't measured well anywhere, and quite frankly isn't all that important for disproving things.
Post by: Shades on December 14, 2010, 09:13:54 am
I no longer wonder why science has overshadowed philosophy for progress.
Its not. In fact that is a strange statement.
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 09:17:54 am
BTW, I definately fit into the smug asshole version, and depending on your perspective the idiot version as well :)As one of them said (Aristoteles, I believe), a fool can ask more in a day than a wise man can answer in a lifetime. But you don't ask.
To put it into perspective, as his teacher's teacher showed: one who asks too much is a fool, one who asks too little is even worse.
Also, I'll stop feeding the trolls.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 09:19:35 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 14, 2010, 12:55:11 pm
As one of them said (Aristoteles, I believe), a fool can ask more in a day than a wise man can answer in a lifetime. But you don't ask.
While I'm on the subject, is there anything from any of these 'great philosophisers' that we can actually build on? Is there anything, for example, that says we exist?
So that's who the brain in the jar guy was. So am I Discartes here, or am I his opponent?
None of it follows? really? I'm rereading it and I'm not seeing the fault.
Should I continue my line of reasoning, or are there already unforgivable flaws that I don't see?
Shall I continue?
To this and others...
In all honesty, what god-like characteristics are left? Since we agree that the deist god can still theoretically exist (though is relatively boring), what characteristics of the well known gods could still exist?
These are all honest questions.
When I make a claim about math, like the square root of 10 is 4, you could just say I'm wrong. That's useless to me. You could say that the square root of 10 is approximately 3.162, which would be a whole lot better. The best way I see to answer that is to patiently go through the definition of square root, then square the numbers. 4+4+4+4=16 (4*4). 3+3+3=9 (3*3). Continue the process, or use a caculator to find it for you.
I would ask more questions, but I think I understand that rare events are common if taken in bulk, or that low level radiation in all directions provides loose evidence for a big bang (the expanding universe provides better evidence). I thought I understood the problem of imaginary worlds as well, which is why I argued against it. Now I've been told I'm wrong, but in such a way that I think the whole discipline would be suspect (which is supported by not being able to think of any contributions to society from them). Looking from the outside, I might think this Malimbar guy is a bit dry, or I might think he's wrong and possibly arrogant, but I wouldn't really be suprised that this guy is thinking the way he is.
So please, teach me. I don't join these conversations to attack, I join them in the hopes I learn something new. Otherwise, I would never join a converstation on religion, ethics, politics, sexuality, morality, science, or any other discipline. If I want to troll, it'd be more fun in the dwarf fortress stories section.
Post by: G-Flex on December 14, 2010, 03:14:32 pm
you can presume that all of them (well, the famous ones) were smarter than any of us.
No, you can't, and for two reasons:
- Someone's ideas and methods becoming popular does not mean they were the best their culture (or any) had to offer. Popularity never makes you right, and attitudes like "if he's famous he must be smart" result in people and ideas being famous not for being smart, but for being famous. After all, what else would happen if you don't actually question then, and simply assume they must be smarter than you?
- Being "smart" is more than about inherent intellectual capacity. As culture has evolved, so has our collective understanding of the world. Philosophical (and other) work that was groundbreaking thousands of years ago can sometimes be seen as quaint today and mostly of historical significance, which isn't to say that it's unimportant.
I'm not saying you shouldn't care about philosophical history, or the ideas of the famous philosophers, just that you're espousing a very dangerous and harmful idea in saying that you can assume any famous philosopher is better/smarter/more knowledgeable than you.
To put it differently: There's a big difference between having humility and learning about existing ideas before thinking you have everything figured out, and taking famous work on faith or not questioning it, or making assumptions either way about how "smart" it is.
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 04:44:15 pm
So please, teach me.I can give pointers. Your initial set of assumptions and reasoning is very close to that of Descartes' Meditations (I linked to that earlier), so I presumed you were familiar with his work. However, he continues his line of reasoning to "prove" that God exists, hence the joke. Since your line of thought agrees with his, you might want to read him.
You could do the whole "correct" path of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Roman Sceptics, etc etc, but although some are enlightening (especially the sceptics should appeal to the cynics), it can be dry at times. Personally, I totally dig Kierkegaard, for instance. He rocks. And Socrates is awesome, too. He's like the Big Daddy of Philosophy.
To put it differently: There's a big difference between having humility and learning about existing ideas before thinking you have everything figured out, and taking famous work on faith or not questioning it, or making assumptions either way about how "smart" it is.Oh, but I never said you shouldn't question it, I agree that you should. I once wrote a paper on Descartes' Meditations II and III, pointing out the errors in his way of thinking (I don't know how good it was, I flunked out of uni before it got graded). That doesn't make me smarter than him, I've got access to knowledge of those who came after him. But to question it, you need to read it first.
Also, philosophers are never popular. Maybe they had groupies and fanclubs in ancient Greece or Rome, but not since then. They're famous because other people say they are, and those other people are generally more knowledgeable than I am. So it's at least an indication that their work is worth reading. It isn't always, there's a lot of crap around, but you never know until you read it.
[rant at Joe the plumber (or Henk and Ingrid, as he's called here)]
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 14, 2010, 05:09:32 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 14, 2010, 05:13:47 pm
ur a fascist nazi! or maybe u wanna for the crooks in goubernement to exploit the people without them speaking up!!111
Wrong thread. Allow me to redirect (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72998.0) you to a somewhat (though perhaps not entirely) appropriate one.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 05:16:07 pm
It's a sign of the times, I guess. Freedom of speech and all. There were times when people knew when to shut up. Nowadays, the opinion of the common man weighs as much as the opinion of the learned man, because even they can be wrong. Yes they can be, but overall they're a lot less wrong than you, common man. So please, don't speak up for yourself, and when you do, make sure you put a lot of thought into it. And even then, test it first against someone who knows his shit before spouting it in public. You're embarrassing the human race. Shut up.Have you... changed your viewpoint very dramatically since the last atheist thread?
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 05:24:20 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 14, 2010, 05:26:07 pm
Wrong thread. Allow me to redirect (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72998.0) you to a somewhat (though perhaps not entirely) appropriate one.Oh please no :o
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 05:56:50 pm
No, I just get annoyed by different things lately. The last elections are one of them. I'm now seeing vocal dumb masses everywhere. Sorry for bringing that up :-\Well... it's just that last time you caused a bit of stir with
Quote
Sure I can. As all ideas are equal in worth, being able to see the merit of other ideas makes you a fuller person.So, uh...
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 06:00:46 pm
So, uh...Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Or that I want to hear them. Or <insert any other made-up reason to maintain internal consistency>.
Post by: fqllve on December 14, 2010, 06:04:24 pm
Quote from: Siquo
being able to see the merit of other ideas makes you a fuller person.
I agree with this part. Even if an idea is completely stupid it never hurts to try to figure out why people would willingly believe something like that.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 06:05:43 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 14, 2010, 06:05:49 pm
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Or that I want to hear them. Or <insert any other made-up reason to maintain internal consistency>.
Saving throw: Failed.
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 06:24:46 pm
Well, yeah. But "You should try and see all viewpoints, afterall they're equally valid" is fundamentally incompatible with "Most people are complete idiots".Of course it isn't. The validity of a viewpoint has nothing to do with that. It's just a difference in priorities that annoys me, and the complete unwillingness of actually thinking. Whether they can't or won't is indifferent to me, for other historic reasons.
Post by: Andir on December 14, 2010, 06:28:03 pm
I don't think it is indifferent to you... I think you are irritated because they do not think as you do...Well, yeah. But "You should try and see all viewpoints, afterall they're equally valid" is fundamentally incompatible with "Most people are complete idiots".Of course it isn't. The validity of a viewpoint has nothing to do with that. It's just a difference in priorities that annoys me, and the complete unwillingness of actually thinking. Whether they can't or won't is indifferent to me, for other historic reasons.
Post by: fqllve on December 14, 2010, 06:28:31 pm
Of course it isn't. The validity of a viewpoint has nothing to do with that. It's just a difference in priorities that annoys me, and the complete unwillingness of actually thinking. Whether they can't or won't is indifferent to me, for other historic reasons.
Priorities are ideas.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 06:30:19 pm
Of course it isn't. The validity of a viewpoint has nothing to do with that. It's just a difference in priorities that annoys me, and the complete unwillingness of actually thinking. Whether they can't or won't is indifferent to me, for other historic reasons."I don't think philosophy is important" is still a viewpoint. Indeed, "I don't think it's necessary to overthink things" is another.
Post by: Bauglir on December 14, 2010, 06:43:31 pm
My 2 cents, anyway. I am overanalyzing I bet.
Post by: Sinned on December 14, 2010, 06:54:50 pm
Everyone's happy and people don't talk about it. Bonus, It safes lives and also stops creating more of it. Because this dirtball is getting way to busy. :P
Post by: Realmfighter on December 14, 2010, 07:13:29 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 14, 2010, 07:33:31 pm
You don't have to keep your religion a secret, just don't be a dick about it.
That includes atheists by the way.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 14, 2010, 08:36:52 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 14, 2010, 08:38:55 pm
You might want to fix that.
Post by: Toady One on December 14, 2010, 09:26:53 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 04:25:15 am
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 04:33:04 am
Apparently, some reader had weak-and woman-like nerves. Or the religious are trying to silence their more outspoken critics :oWell, as you put it... religion should be a personal thing. Extrapolating that, someone could insist that attacking the idea of a religion is a personal attack. It's a pretty weak argument, but I can see how someone could think that.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 04:35:13 am
If religion was truly a personal thing, nobody would even be able to make attacks on it. But it isn't, so one can, so people will just have to take the pain of putting a little more faith into maintaining their beliefs.
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 04:49:55 am
It's so weak it probably radiates itself out of existence within less than a nanosecond :oQuite a few years back I debated the idea that someone needed government protection for their religious thought... (ie: First Amendment) If religion is a person's belief or somehow backed by a divine being, why would they need the government to protect their organization? Then I realized that it does't do that, yet so many people think it does. It actually woke me up to what the real ideas are behind The Constitution.
If religion was truly a personal thing, nobody would even be able to make attacks on it. But it isn't, so one can, so people will just have to take the pain of putting a little more faith into maintaining their beliefs.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 15, 2010, 10:00:11 am
http://fora.tv/2010/03/01/Meet_The_Author_Richard_Dawkins#fullprogram
There are a few points relevant to this thread and what has shown up in it up till now, including the question of the evolutionary reason for the emergence of religion, Shrugging Khan's attitude etc.
Also, he claims, right at the beginning, that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. This is an interesting claim from such an advocate of scientific thinking. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if he uses any more specific arguments to support that claim, but it might be a good topic for further discussion.
Post by: G-Flex on December 15, 2010, 10:13:58 am
Also, he claims, right at the beginning, that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. This is an interesting claim from such an advocate of scientific thinking. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if he uses any more specific arguments to support that claim, but it might be a good topic for further discussion.
It is a fact. It's a natural process we observe constantly. Evolution is as much a fact as the Sun existing.
Post by: Shades on December 15, 2010, 10:23:03 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 15, 2010, 10:50:57 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think I understand you. I probably heard Descartes first few arguments somewhere in my past. If you remember (or look it up), I was trying to dissuade his first point: that we might be a fleeting dream of a butterfly with an entirely constructed reality. If it sounds like a similar argument, I would think it is so because it uses the same starting point, not the same logic. And btw, I think we can show that his logic falls apart to an uncreative mind at the first meditation, which is the simplest and most agreeable of them that I read on wikipedia. As long at the "dream of a butterfly" has any definition, there would be artifacts that it would predict. Every one of these can be tested against our senses and logic, and disproven in kind.
I recently purchased (for cheap) a translation of Plato's Republic. Alright, it was several months ago and I've only read about 5 chapters so far (it sits in my car). From this, I can see why Socrates was far ahead of his time, being willing to let argument change his mind and to actually care about the result of the arguments. I would think though, if philosophy builds on older philosophies like science does, that we should be a lot further along than they were. Thus I ask again what contributions the study of philosophy has given us, say, since the birth of science.
As for reading something before you question it, I don't think that is always necessary. It's necessary for the most fair and complete version, sure, but sometimes it falls apart long before then. I have still not read the whole christian bible, for example. I have read most of it, but it's really hard to get through vague chapters on how to kill cattle, or the biology of bats being birds, or to reread the history in the dullest forms of inconsistent genealogy. I think it's fair to still say it's a relatively useless volume though, based on the bits that I have read. More importantly, we don't have the mental capacity and time to read everybody's opinion. I skipped about 20 pages of theology discussion before I posted (reading the first few and the last few pages only). To question it, all it takes is a vague understanding, not a complete and exhaustive one.
An analogy, since I assume there are things you don't like about politics. Do we really need to listen to every single senator for hours at a time before we take a vote? Yes, they all question it (at least the half that is expected to), but the same logic they all use generally falls apart at some point.
Here's Dawkins talking about one of his books(Evolution: the greatest show on Earth).
http://fora.tv/2010/03/01/Meet_The_Author_Richard_Dawkins#fullprogram
Also, he claims, right at the beginning, that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. This is an interesting claim from such an advocate of scientific thinking. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if he uses any more specific arguments to support that claim, but it might be a good topic for further discussion.
Forgive Richard for saying it's a fact. It's a fact in the sense that anything in science is, with an absurd amount of support and no philosophical competitors. Yet every time we call it a theory, some nut job says "it's only a theory", which can grate on an evolutionary biologists nerves. I don't own the book yet, but from what I've read in the bookstore he does indeed back it up with a lot of evidence, as much as can fit in a book that size while still being readable by an eighth grader.
Just to add that things don't have to be 'true', for some absolute value of true, for them to be a fact only provable and not false. So facts are true as far as we can tell. This is a bit of a simplification but the best I can do with my limited wordsmith skills.Huh? This reminds me of "I know you hate that your meme is a meme, so I created a meme of you hating your meme so you you can be hating you hate your a meme is a meme". Wordsmith skills indeed :)
Post by: Glowcat on December 15, 2010, 01:30:36 pm
I think I understand you. I probably heard Descartes first few arguments somewhere in my past. If you remember (or look it up), I was trying to dissuade his first point: that we might be a fleeting dream of a butterfly with an entirely constructed reality.
You've confused Descartes with Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher/book. Descartes is the one who took "Doubt all that can be doubted" to its extreme and came out of it with "I think therefore I am."
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 06:16:16 pm
Apparently, some reader had weak-and woman-like nerves. Or the religious are trying to silence their more outspoken critics :oSexism. Great.
Moving on...
Also, he claims, right at the beginning, that Evolution is a fact, not a theory. This is an interesting claim from such an advocate of scientific thinking. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if he uses any more specific arguments to support that claim, but it might be a good topic for further discussion.Well, we have observed it. A lot. Think drug resistant bacteria. It definitely happens in some form or another.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 06:23:36 pm
Sexism. Great.Have someone's delicate sensibilities been insulted by something that wasn't even an insult of any kind? :o
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 06:35:55 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 15, 2010, 06:39:35 pm
Zhuagnzi? That is a crazy name. It's one I'm sure I've never heard before. Its far more likely I bastardized Descartes (or even more likely a mix of "I think therefor I am" and the commentary on "The Matrix" movie.I think I understand you. I probably heard Descartes first few arguments somewhere in my past. If you remember (or look it up), I was trying to dissuade his first point: that we might be a fleeting dream of a butterfly with an entirely constructed reality.
You've confused Descartes with Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher/book. Descartes is the one who took "Doubt all that can be doubted" to its extreme and came out of it with "I think therefore I am."
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 06:41:14 pm
Not offended. I can note blatant sexism without being upset by it.Then you'd better point out the sexism to me.
Post by: Siquo on December 15, 2010, 06:51:47 pm
Don't feed the trolls.Not offended. I can note blatant sexism without being upset by it.Then you'd better point out the sexism to me.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 06:53:01 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 06:53:34 pm
weak-and woman-like nerves.There ya go.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:01:00 pm
Quote
Sexism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other.
Never said anything like that. I simply referred to the rather undeniable facts that women aren't as likely to keep a level head during heated discussions; that they have less of a capacity for such debating heat. That's not saying they're worth less, or otherwise inferior to men - just that when it comes to these things, they seam to run out of nerve faster than men. It's an observation made quite frequently, with little evidence speaking against it (and even some confirming it, IIRC). There might've been a Cracked article about it a while back, actually.
So I maintain my point: You just want an easy way to look down upon your fellow debaters. Ts ts. That's not funky. Just because someone talks funnyspeak doesn't mean you can make half-assed claims about their positions.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 15, 2010, 07:02:55 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:04:59 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 07:06:07 pm
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 07:08:41 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 15, 2010, 07:11:41 pm
Just sayin'.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:13:12 pm
I would say this goes under "less competant" actually. And just because it's supposedly an "undeniable fact" doesn't mean you can generalize it to all women and then use it as a derogatory term against other people.Why derogatory? I used it in an entirely general manner. Just because there was a "weak" next to it doesn't mean that it has anything directly to do with the "woman-like", rather than the unknown traitor's nerves it referred to. Two attributes aimed at one object do not make the two attributes related to one another, which would be the only way to read derogatory-ness in my earlier lines.
Also, that's the entire use of generalisations - using them to describe the vast majority of a group, rather than to painstakingly explain that yes there are exceptions, quite a lot actually, but there's still a bigger part of them that do fit into this pattern, so stop it already. To point at generalisations as something universally bad is just childish.
There's political correctness that must be obeyed... or something like that. Offending people is totally anti-social and if you are anti-social, you are a terrorist!I'd rather be a terrorist than have no fun.
Shrugging Khan is the person I would be least sad to see leave the forums. Including spammers.I like you too, you know. Faithful fellow bay watcher, and all that.
Just sayin'.
Post by: Sowelu on December 15, 2010, 07:14:06 pm
Hugs all around!Shrugging Khan is the person I would be least sad to see leave the forums. Including spammers.I like you too, you know. Faithful fellow bay watcher, and all that.
Just sayin'.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:16:17 pm
But really...including spammers? Don't be harsh, man. I've never done anything that bad to you. I couldn't.
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 07:21:27 pm
I've never done anything that bad to you. I couldn't.Interesting statement... because some people place certain aspects of society in a lower bracket than spammers. While you may not feel you fit in that bracket, I can guarantee that someone does.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:22:16 pm
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 07:24:49 pm
And I think his name is Sowelu. Which saddens me; that such things must be. At least you still respect me.I think respect is pushing it. ;) There's a fine small list of people I respect in this world and you don't get on it until I know you better.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 07:26:42 pm
Why derogatory? I used it in an entirely general manner. Just because there was a "weak" next to it doesn't mean that it has anything directly to do with the "woman-like", rather than the unknown traitor's nerves it referred to. Two attributes aimed at one object do not make the two attributes related to one another, which would be the only way to read derogatory-ness in my earlier lines.Or because, you know, you were strongly implying it had a negative meaning. And still are. Quite frankly, I can't see any way to read it in which it isn't derogatory (unless you like inserting random non sequiters into everything).
Also, that's the entire use of generalisations - using them to describe the vast majority of a group, rather than to painstakingly explain that yes there are exceptions, quite a lot actually, but there's still a bigger part of them that do fit into this pattern, so stop it already. To point at generalisations as something universally bad is just childish.Firstly, I'd like to call bullshit on "vast majority", considering that I've never seen any girls I know lose their cool in a debate (not to mention that the leader of my debating society is female). Secondly, yes, I do object to generalizing about half of the general population.
Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint. The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.
Post by: Andir on December 15, 2010, 07:29:44 pm
Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint. The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.I had hoped you would see what is going on by now... there's a (not so) subtle group character assassination going on.
(hint: group association, stereotypes, thread topic, rudeness, arrogance, asinine statements... )
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:41:33 pm
I think respect is pushing it. ;) There's a fine small list of people I respect in this world and you don't get on it until I know you better.Ah, I forgive you. It's not like I personally have a notion of respect, anyways ;D
Or because, you know, you were strongly implying it had a negative meaning. And still are. Quite frankly, I can't see any way to read it in which it isn't derogatory (unless you like inserting random non sequiters into everything).If I called a man's breast "woman-like", would that be derogatory because it's commonly accepted that a) women tend to have tits, and b) man-tits are not a nice things?
Firstly, I'd like to call bullshit on "vast majority", considering that I've never seen any girls I know lose their cool in a debate (not to mention that the leader of my debating society is female).Tell me where you live, I want to join that club - because over here, there's an unmistakable tendency for debating women to grow hysterical faster, to not last as long, and to just drop to personal insults when men are still exchanging actual arguments. It's not prejudice, but observation.
Secondly, yes, I do object to generalizing about half of the general population.Your objection is noted, but disagreed with. Generalisations are legit, as long as they serve as simplifications of an otherwise complex issue, enabling it to be implemented in an argument without having to explain the debate-irrelevant details - criticising a generalisation based on the assumption that there is no reasoning behind it is simply premature.
Finally, this bothers me... well, because it seems to be taking an extremely backward viewpoint. The kind I would've hoped no longer exists.What? That there's biological and neurological differences between the sexes, and that those can occasionally manifest in situations such as debate?
Post by: Sowelu on December 15, 2010, 07:46:17 pm
Post by: Phmcw on December 15, 2010, 07:51:32 pm
Well, yes i's sexism, and blatant sexism with that.
But given that the last ime I've red "weak and woman like nerves" in a book date from a book published in the 1920's, I'm wondering if you're not willingly derailing this thread, which would happen to make it clause, given that a mod just had to intervene.
Respond mister Anderson.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 07:57:34 pm
Man, master of debating aikido here. Takes a stance, then when someone attacks it, steps out of the way and claims a more mild position and pushes people right over.What am I to do? People are all too eager to attack my non-serious language with in full gallop; just asking to trip over the serious core of relatively reasonable arguments.
::) oh great, an "it's not sexism it's true" argument.Well...if you want it, here it is: "It's not sexism, it's pretty much true except for the usual exceptions." Just because my conclusions after observation are in some vague sense similar to what the chauvinists of old came up with simply based on unquestioned prejudice doesn't mean I'm a sexist.
Well, yes i's sexism, and blatant sexism with that.
But given that the last ime I've red "weak and woman like nerves" in a book date from a book published in the 1920's, I'm wondering if you're not willingly derailing this thread, which would happen to make it clause, given that a mod just had to intervene.
Respond mister Anderson.
Spoiler: Don't click me. I'm a spoiler. Don't hurt my privacy. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 08:05:24 pm
If I called a man's breast "woman-like", would that be derogatory because it's commonly accepted that a) women tend to have tits, and b) man-tits are not a nice things?Well, no, because it's generally established that women having breasts isn't bad. Wheras weak nerves... not so much.
Tell me where you live, I want to join that club - because over here, there's an unmistakable tendency for debating women to grow hysterical faster, to not last as long, and to just drop to personal insults when men are still exchanging actual arguments. It's not prejudice, but observation.Cambridge. Really, to me, it seems beyond overgeneralization, and well into "complete bullshit" territory. Sortof like "Men are better drivers".
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 15, 2010, 08:10:10 pm
Well, no, because it's generally established that women having breasts isn't bad. Wheras weak nerves... not so much.What's bad or not shouldn't be judged lightly. Weak nerves can help avoid unnecessary stress...anyways, women's nerves aren't even necessarily weak. Just woman-like - they may even be stronger than men's when it comes to things other than debate. Or maybe it really does depend on culture.
Cambridge. Really, to me, it seems beyond overgeneralization, and well into "complete bullshit" territory. Sortof like "Men are better drivers".Generally speaking, men are better drivers than women. Not "safer", "more fuel-efficient" or "better in all aspects, always, all men!", but generally they seem to have less overall problems with the handling of cars, a higher degree of skill behind the wheel, and better perception/judgement of the road and its condition.
Post by: Sowelu on December 15, 2010, 08:18:30 pm
trollface.jpg
Post by: Glowcat on December 15, 2010, 08:30:10 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 15, 2010, 08:58:06 pm
What's bad or not shouldn't be judged lightly. Weak nerves can help avoid unnecessary stress...anyways, women's nerves aren't even necessarily weak. Just woman-like - they may even be stronger than men's when it comes to things other than debate. Or maybe it really does depend on culture.So, linking this back to your original statement, apparently "women-like" nerves make you more willing to report stuff you see online. Or drive you into some kind of fit of passion (apparently the only reason to report someone).
...Yeah, this still isn't making any sense.
Generally speaking, men are better drivers than women. Not "safer", "more fuel-efficient" or "better in all aspects, always, all men!", but generally they seem to have less overall problems with the handling of cars, a higher degree of skill behind the wheel, and better perception/judgement of the road and its condition.Which is why women have fewer accidents...?
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 15, 2010, 08:59:57 pm
QuoteSexism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other.
Herp derp. Implicit sexism is still sexism.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 15, 2010, 09:07:45 pm
Anyway, this has gotten far too offtopic (successful troll is successful? ::)). Quick, we need a new topic! Oh wait, I have a rather humorous one:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 15, 2010, 09:17:12 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 15, 2010, 09:34:34 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 15, 2010, 09:49:22 pm
That doesn't sound quite right, but I'm having trouble thinking of a better way to say it.
Most of the time that I participate in these conversations, a few people but in, sound self-important, and the thread dies of apathy. The thing that remains to keep it alive is trolls, or perhaps fresh blood to sound self important, ignore each others points, and then die of apathy again.
What arguments do you think still stand for or against their being a god of any form, and what form would it be?
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 01:55:17 am
Anyway, this has gotten far too offtopic (successful troll is successful? ::)). Quick, we need a new topic! Oh wait, I have a rather humorous one:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I resent being represented by the Mac guy.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 16, 2010, 02:33:40 am
I'm not represented at all, so don't complain :PAnyway, this has gotten far too offtopic (successful troll is successful? ::)). Quick, we need a new topic! Oh wait, I have a rather humorous one:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I resent being represented by the Mac guy.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 04:30:18 am
Let's not discuss Shrugging Khan's sexism (or lack thereof) in this thread. We didn't really need 2 pages of derailment for an obvious troll (whether the troll was in sexism, or in implying anyone who disagrees with his posting habits is weak of nerves, it was still pretty clearly a troll). And before you post, Khan, it's not a matter for debate. Drop it. Same goes for anyone else.Everything can be a matter of debate, as long as someone feels strongly enough about it.
So my question is whether anyone actually wants to be persuaded of something?Nope. Everyone here has their positions, and while they might change after years of self-doubt and continuous of about reasonable counter-arguments, nobody can actively change another's viewpoint. People aren't flexible enough for that.
[...]
What arguments do you think still stand for or against their being a god of any form, and what form would it be?
So, no single argument can be classified as better than another - there's thousands of arguments against the existence of god, and a few dozen fakes ones in favour of it, but people will still believe what they want to; immune to reason and just jumping deeper into blind faith whenever you question their beliefs.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 05:56:44 am
So, no single argument can be classified as better than another - there's thousands of arguments against the existence of god, and a few dozen fakes ones in favour of it, but people will still believe what they want to; immune to reason and just jumping deeper into blind faith whenever you question their beliefs.
Why do you even care what people believe? Oh wait.
Nope, religion ought to be as secret as possible. Just keep it to yourself, don't dare try to push it onto your kids, tell only your mate or your closest friends...as long as religion is a mass culture, as in "world religions", it's better off as far away from the surface as possible. People adopt religious beliefs for deeply personal reasons after all - mixing them up with social dynamics only muddies the spiritual aspect, and carries lots of dangerous ideas into public discourses.
Well then the same should be true of politics. And don't think nontheistic positions are excluded either. In fact, I'd like it if our children weren't indoctrinated into our "people as commodities" and "anything can be bought" mentality while we're at it.
People are dangerous, and potentially dangerous ideas get filtered into the public all the time, not just through religion. Religion has never made anyone stupid, the stupid religious were stupid already.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 06:56:24 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 16, 2010, 07:24:25 am
Too true! The indoctrination, instrumentalisation and general corrption of children is an unforgivable crime...and socially acceptable, of course.It's used by many religions simply because it's the easiest way to control people. Get them in at a young age, and they'll never question it. Most people don't even get a chance to express their freedom of religion. Or they simply don't question it.
Of course, I did, and you did too most likely (excluding atheist parents), but we went completely opposite directions. I went to a different religion (my family is Christian, even a few Jehovah's Witnesses ::)), and you took this general attitude of "all religions are bad". I was agnostic for a while though, before I settled in on my opinion (still not done with that either...).
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 16, 2010, 08:07:46 am
It doesn't matter, though. If anybody's posting here with hopes of e.g. getting Siquo to admit that he was wrong all this time, and convert him to atheism, or making Shrugging Khan repent for his evil ways and embrace Jesus, then they might just as well stop.So my question is whether anyone actually wants to be persuaded of something?Nope. Everyone here has their positions, and while they might change after years of self-doubt and continuous of about reasonable counter-arguments, nobody can actively change another's viewpoint. People aren't flexible enough for that.
[...]
What arguments do you think still stand for or against their being a god of any form, and what form would it be?
So, no single argument can be classified as better than another - there's thousands of arguments against the existence of god, and a few dozen fakes ones in favour of it, but people will still believe what they want to; immune to reason and just jumping deeper into blind faith whenever you question their beliefs.
However, it's not the preachers that are the target of conversion here. As with political debates, there might be undecided people reading this, so if one thinks that his point of view is the bestest, and would make the world a better place, then he better make compelling arguments to support it.
I'd still like to see Sh.Khan be a bit more considerate, and use a different tone in discussion. It's just about good manners, really, and I'd rather see well-mannered people flocking to the atheist cause, rather than crude rednecks.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 09:09:29 am
Too true! The indoctrination, instrumentalisation and general corrption of children is an unforgivable crime...and socially acceptable, of course.
Honestly? Pretty much all child-rearing is indoctrination. And it's not just socially acceptable it's socially mandated. Unless you want the kids to have to fend for themselves in every situation then they can't help but be indoctrinated.
I'm more concerned with teaching children to think critically about what they believe than restricting parents' rights to pass their own beliefs on to the tiny versions of themselves. I don't care what a person believes, as long as they actually believe it rather than just accept what they've been told. Stopping people from sharing their ideas isn't going to make anyone any more thoughtful about them and we shouldn't do it just because kids will believe anything.
Post by: Andir on December 16, 2010, 10:47:06 am
I'm more concerned with teaching children to think critically about what they believe than restricting parents' rights to pass their own beliefs on to the tiny versions of themselves.I don't think this is what you are saying, but I wanted to head it off...
I do NOT think the process in teaching kids to think critically is including several religious classes in their schooling (to get them experience in that religion or whatnot...) Like the current push to teach Intelligent Design.
I think the "training" needs to be a small part of every class they are involved in to get them questioning Math, Science, History, etc. Let them question the aspects and get them thinking about all courses and explain to them the accepted answers and why they are accepted. Do not treat any course topic like concrete bunkers. Encourage kids to ask more questions by letting them know that doubt is acceptable.
The advantages to this approach would be kids that do not blindly go about life and accept what their peers say as fact. It will hopefully squash the idea that anyone asking questions in class is dumb, and it will allow them to push the limits of accepted knowledge.
Unfortunately, it's not an easy task because you first have to teach the teachers to think critically about their own lessons.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 16, 2010, 11:11:54 am
I'd rather see well-mannered people flocking to the atheist cause, rather than crude rednecks.
Bigot! :P
I do NOT think the process in teaching kids to think critically is including several religious classes in their schooling (to get them experience in that religion or whatnot...) Like the current push to teach Intelligent Design.
It's certainly not the same thing, but I'm all for teaching them about religion, by which I mean learning the basic beliefs and history of the world's major religions.
Post by: Argembarger on December 16, 2010, 11:34:41 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 16, 2010, 12:08:33 pm
It doesn't matter, though. If anybody's posting here with hopes of e.g. getting Siquo to admit that he was wrong all this time, and convert him to atheismDamnit, I'd settle for ""all viewpoints are equally valid" is not a workable worldview" :/.
Just popping in briefly to say that this is a really good article (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Weird+World&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=flashback)."2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying"
"7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too"
Really, just... too full of logical fallacies for my liking. I can probably agree with the points, but I don't really like the explanations much.
Post by: G-Flex on December 16, 2010, 12:44:27 pm
Post by: Andir on December 16, 2010, 02:22:19 pm
"Nobody can change anyone's mind on the Internet" is an extremely naive viewpoint. No, you're not likely to directly change someone's mind during the course of an argument. People's minds change over time via exposure to new ideas (and testing of old ones), and talking/arguing about things is an important part of that. If it weren't for things like that, I would be much less knowledgeable and have much less well-developed ideas about any number of things, not to mention the fact that one of the best ways to learn about something is to discuss it with people who don't think the same way as you about it.Short version: "You may not change their mind, but you change part of it." ;)
Post by: Glowcat on December 16, 2010, 02:50:24 pm
Short version: "You may not change their mind, but you change part of it." ;)
Over time those small changes from debate can lead to a complete identity overhaul. I'm only speaking from my own experience but right before periods when I made a major alteration in my view I found myself clinging to micro-victories whereas the wider macro-view made less and less sense to me. Eventually the contradictions and doubts caused me to cease supporting my previous views and I slowly began rebuilding my identity from the wreckage.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 16, 2010, 03:17:09 pm
"Nobody can change anyone's mind on the Internet" is an extremely naive viewpoint. No, you're not likely to directly change someone's mind during the course of an argument. People's minds change over time via exposure to new ideas (and testing of old ones), and talking/arguing about things is an important part of that. If it weren't for things like that, I would be much less knowledgeable and have much less well-developed ideas about any number of things, not to mention the fact that one of the best ways to learn about something is to discuss it with people who don't think the same way as you about it.Short version: "You may not change their mind, but you change part of it." ;)
I approve. I'd put it in my signature, but I'm too lazy.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 04:21:34 pm
I'd still like to see Sh.Khan be a bit more considerate, and use a different tone in discussion. It's just about good manners, really, and I'd rather see well-mannered people flocking to the atheist cause, rather than crude rednecks.No chance in snowy hell. The market for polite atheists is oversaturated.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2010, 04:28:09 pm
There are plenty of both flamebugs and calm individuals who are atheists, neither are oversaturated. Just don't do somthing you'll regret later Khan, I know I acted like a bit of an ass during the hight of my post-deconversion frustration.I'd still like to see Sh.Khan be a bit more considerate, and use a different tone in discussion. It's just about good manners, really, and I'd rather see well-mannered people flocking to the atheist cause, rather than crude rednecks.No chance in snowy hell. The market for polite atheists is oversaturated.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 04:31:36 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2010, 04:34:19 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 04:43:41 pm
*gives in to his emotions*
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 04:59:27 pm
Just popping in briefly to say that this is a really good article (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Weird+World&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=flashback).It is, thank you. He even quotes Neal Stephenson :) It reminds me of that whole "rally for sanity" thing the US had a while ago. I liked that.
Also, I see now that I was wrong about all my beliefs.
I can see clearly now all viewpoints are equally invalid. Including nihilism, so I can't believe in none of them!
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 05:07:06 pm
Also, I see now that I was wrong about all my beliefs.
I can see clearly now all viewpoints are equally invalid. Including nihilism, so I can't believe in none of them!
If by valid you mean "a person has a right to believe it" and not "is an accurate portrayal of the world" then I'd agree with you. People can believe whatever they want.
However, not all beliefs have equal explanatory power. In fact, all beliefs have necessarily unequal explanatory power. If two beliefs explain the same things equally well, then they are in fact the same belief.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 05:09:12 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 05:13:19 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 16, 2010, 05:57:59 pm
I think I like the dark side better.
*gives in to his emotions*
They do have cookies I hear. However, I bet the good side is full of cookie DOUGH, which is just amazing. More than that... it's peanut butter cookie dough. hmm... I'm imagining having a good-gasm. You know what makes it even better? sharing the good-gasm, because then not only are YOU happy, everyone in your environment is too. Yes, that is heaven on earth buddy, right there.
Oh... what were we talking about again? I'm sure you can find something in there to persuade you to the side of good, I think that's it. Now I'm hungry.
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 06:03:49 pm
Depending on which questions you want answered and how, yes, one belief will be better than others.Yay, I haz a follower! :D
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 06:46:20 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2010, 06:48:45 pm
This place is more civil than I would have expected. Not like a lot of atheists on Youtube. All they do (From my experience.) is troll around.You have...evidence of this? Unless you mean commenters, dear freaking god the commenters, but I have yet to see any athiest video trolls on Youtube.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 06:49:37 pm
Depending on which questions you want answered and how, yes, one belief will be better than others.But this basically boils down to
Depending on your perspective, yes, one belief will be better than others.Which says nothing.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 06:50:44 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 06:55:16 pm
Which says nothing.No, it means that depending on your needs, you choose a belief. If you value straight answers more than accuracy of answers, you might have a totally different belief system.
This place is more civil than I would have expected.Thanks, from almost all of us ;) Except for me, I only count as an atheist depending on your definition.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 06:56:57 pm
No, it means that depending on your needs, you choose a belief. If you value straight answers more than accuracy of answers, you might have a totally different belief system.Your saying people will believe what they want to believe.
That is a well known fact, which in essence says nothing.
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 06:57:58 pm
Your saying people will believe what they want to believe.No, it means people believe what they need to believe. You don't choose your insecurities.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 06:59:26 pm
Depending on which questions you want answered and how, yes, one belief will be better than others.But this basically boils down toDepending on your perspective, yes, one belief will be better than others.Which says nothing.
Yeah, because better is subjective. We can say that some ideas excel in some ways and not in others, and even that some ideas are mostly beneficial or mostly detrimental. But we can't say one idea is better than another. That doesn't really even mean anything.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 07:02:03 pm
No, it means people believe what they need to believe. You don't choose your insecurities.They want to believe in what they need to believe in, and people are there insecurities.
I feel as if we are arguing over semantics.
Yeah, because better is subjective. We can say that some ideas excel in some ways and not in others, and even that some ideas are mostly beneficial or mostly detrimental. But we can't say one idea is better than another. That doesn't really even mean anything.
You can say an idea is better, just it's up to other people as to whether they agree with you or not.
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 07:10:23 pm
They want to believe in what they need to believe in, and people are there insecurities.Only if you lose all insecurities, you can choose any belief.
Quote
You can say an idea is better, just it's up to other people as to whether they agree with you or not.Point: you can only say an idea is better for you.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 07:14:01 pm
Only if you lose all insecurities, you can choose any belief.What does this mean, I don't even.
you can only say an idea is better for you.Atheism is the best for everyone ever.
Doesn't mean its true, but I can say it anyway.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 07:14:19 pm
Only if you lose all insecurities, you can choose any belief.That's actually the point where you can just straight up stop believing and start to trust your thinking instead.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 07:17:43 pm
Only if you lose all insecurities, you can choose any belief.That's actually the point where you can just straight up stop believing and start to trust your thinking instead.
That is called
believing in yourself.
Yeah, because better is subjective. We can say that some ideas excel in some ways and not in others, and even that some ideas are mostly beneficial or mostly detrimental. But we can't say one idea is better than another. That doesn't really even mean anything.
You can say an idea is better, just it's up to other people as to whether they agree with you or not.
Well, of course it's possible to say something is better. But you can't be objectively right about it.
Post by: Siquo on December 16, 2010, 07:19:05 pm
What does this mean, I don't even.If your belief is just an answer to your own insecurities, then you are unfree to choose and hold any belief that does not answer them (answer is a broad term here, I don't mean alleviate).
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 07:20:45 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 16, 2010, 07:21:39 pm
What do you even mean by insecurities?This. So much this. I don't even know what you're talking about, it just sounds like...I don't even know, nothing.
Post by: Sowelu on December 16, 2010, 07:24:24 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 07:30:54 pm
You're not there yet, mr Khan. Neither am I, for that matter, yet. The dalai lama, maybe. Believing in yourself, as fqllve says, is just another answer to insecurities.You're reading too many crappy newspapers, I suspect.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 07:33:14 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 07:34:48 pm
An atheist I know claimed that the Bible was adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Anyone else hold this view or is this guy the only one? (Essentially.)
Doubt it, he was probably saying it to you just for "Lol what" value.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 07:39:44 pm
An atheist I know claimed that the Bible was adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Anyone else hold this view or is this guy the only one? (Essentially.)
Doubt it, he was probably saying it to you just for "Lol what" value.
Maybe Genesis was, and the serpent has been suggested to symbolize a Sumerian god, but the majority of the bible is a history of the Israelites.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 07:40:23 pm
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 07:44:38 pm
You meant he suggest that Jesus was a reinterpretation of Gilgamesh? No, I've never heard anything like that other than in a The Hero's Journey kind of way.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 07:49:07 pm
All been around before, for a long time.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 07:50:52 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 16, 2010, 07:54:06 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 08:00:07 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 16, 2010, 09:02:08 pm
Apparently, some reader had weak-and woman-like nerves.
This was quite a time ago.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 09:04:00 pm
to agree that men and women should be abolished and everyone needs to be androgynous
When did this happen?
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 16, 2010, 09:32:24 pm
Does anybody (Siquo started this I think) care to answer this? You can't argue against something when you're arguing something completely different than the other person. I know there's something wrong with the whole "people believe what they need to believe" and "people believe to solve insecurities" kind of thing, but it's impossible to argue against it without defining the terms of need and insecurity.What do you even mean by insecurities?This. So much this. I don't even know what you're talking about, it just sounds like...I don't even know, nothing.
Post by: fqllve on December 16, 2010, 09:46:07 pm
People have certain fears about themselves and the world. Each religion is best suited to assuage specific fears and therefore the religion a person choses is the one best suited to their particular mix of fears.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 16, 2010, 10:51:35 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 16, 2010, 10:52:29 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 17, 2010, 12:06:53 am
It used to be on his (Coughlan's) channel, but that got deleted for "Copyright Infringement".
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 17, 2010, 01:07:13 am
this loosely reminds me of a critique on the question why. Re looking up the video in question:Relates to religion really well, I can see why you posted it. I can't explain why I believe what I believe, I just do. It wasn't indoctrinated in me, it wasn't even suggested to me by any outside (non-spiritual) force. The same should be said of all people. Unfortunately, religion is imprinted early on people. They need a chance to explore their own religion and beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
By the way, here's a challenge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5Llzxjhi0) for monotheists only (it's an interesting video though, so you should watch it even if you're not monotheistic). Basically, it boils down to proving that there's only one god, as opposed to multiple. Completely ignore whether gods exist at all, just prove that there is one god.
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 05:14:11 am
Yeah, time zones and all.Does anybody (Siquo started this I think) care to answer this? You can't argue against something when you're arguing something completely different than the other person. I know there's something wrong with the whole "people believe what they need to believe" and "people believe to solve insecurities" kind of thing, but it's impossible to argue against it without defining the terms of need and insecurity.What do you even mean by insecurities?This. So much this. I don't even know what you're talking about, it just sounds like...I don't even know, nothing.
Insecurities can range from fear to the actual meaning of the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_insecurity) until anything you're not sure about (and have a feeling with that unsure-ness). To elaborate: the difference between "I don't know, but that's ok" and "I don't know, and it bugs me that I don't". People continuously make up elaborate stories, behaviour and beliefs to "fix", alleviate, aggravate or otherwise answer these feelings. Up until here, basic 1st-year uni psychology. To continue from there:
I pose that the beliefs people hold, are there because they need them.
For instance, one might convert to "believing in yourself" for fear of being bullshitted by other people. One might turn to God for fear of death, or to a vengeful God for feeling that there's not enough justice in the world, to a loving God for feeling unloved. Or to a religion to get a sense of belonging, for fear of being alone.
One might turn to Atheism for fear of being wrong.
(I love sentences that at once insult and flatter the recipient ;) choose your flavour)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 05:56:13 am
I gotta go with that one. And Shrugging Khan, I find that jokes like "Weak-women like nerves" are funny. But like religion it's best to keep it to yourself on a public forum.Can't have word-fight without giving some - keeping to yourself doesn't make for much of a dispute.
I'm curious, is Shrugging Khan still out hereNo, he went to his little hidey-hole, called the moderators because people were mean to him, and cried himself to hibernation.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 17, 2010, 08:19:15 am
I pose that the beliefs people hold, are there because they need them.Yeah, go ahead and arbitrarily stamp motives onto everyone. We don't mind.
For instance, one might convert to "believing in yourself" for fear of being bullshitted by other people. One might turn to God for fear of death, or to a vengeful God for feeling that there's not enough justice in the world, to a loving God for feeling unloved. Or to a religion to get a sense of belonging, for fear of being alone.
One might turn to Atheism for fear of being wrong.
Seriously, no positive reasons for holding a belief? Or just holding one because you think it's true?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 08:53:40 am
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 10:25:37 am
Yeah, go ahead and arbitrarily stamp motives onto everyone. We don't mind.Ahwell, as long as we crossed the generalisation threshold already I might as well contribute to it, right? :)
Quote
Seriously, no positive reasons for holding a belief? Or just holding one because you think it's true?Nope. You think it's true because you believe it, not the other way around. There has been some funny research in that area: Confronted with facts that oppose one's belief, the belief only gets stronger instead of weaker. The only way to do it was to confront people in a certain way. For instance, they asked US conservative voters: "Should we bring the amount of taxmoney that goes to welfare down to 1%?" They all voted either yes, of course, and the more lenient ones thought that was a bit harsh but it should still be lowered. Then they were told the amount right now is already at 1%. And that actually hit them right in the metaphorical belief-stomach, and made their judgement more lenient towards welfare. The control group was told the 1% value in advance, and continued to believe it should be lowered. The conclusion was that facts alone cannot sway ones belief, people will either mold their beliefs around it or just disbelieve the facts. Confronting facts can however sway beliefs if they're brought in the right way. (googlegoogle nope can't find source again, you'll just have to... ahem... believe me :P)
I believe being wrong is an opportunity to learn. Being right is just standing still.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 10:27:26 am
Being right is just standing still.As long as you stand still on the right spot ;D
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 10:28:12 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 10:44:36 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 10:50:04 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 10:54:01 am
Then again, that might've just been the expected conduct, back in the day.
I stick to my "'sall propaganna".
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 11:07:12 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 11:15:56 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 17, 2010, 12:02:43 pm
Nope. You think it's true because you believe it, not the other way around. There has been some funny research in that area: Confronted with facts that oppose one's belief, the belief only gets stronger instead of weaker. The only way to do it was to confront people in a certain way. For instance, they asked US conservative voters: "Should we bring the amount of taxmoney that goes to welfare down to 1%?" They all voted either yes, of course, and the more lenient ones thought that was a bit harsh but it should still be lowered. Then they were told the amount right now is already at 1%. And that actually hit them right in the metaphorical belief-stomach, and made their judgement more lenient towards welfare. The control group was told the 1% value in advance, and continued to believe it should be lowered. The conclusion was that facts alone cannot sway ones belief, people will either mold their beliefs around it or just disbelieve the facts. Confronting facts can however sway beliefs if they're brought in the right way. (googlegoogle nope can't find source again, you'll just have to... ahem... believe me :P)All that shows is how effective leading questions are.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 17, 2010, 12:07:45 pm
Depends on how ya look at it. Do you consider circumcision mutilation? If so then yes.What's worse is female circumcision. Male circumcision is the equivalent to cutting off earlobes, or pinkies. Female circumcision is the equivalent to gutting out the entire ear, or every finger but the thumb. It's... horrible.
Anyways, I just had an almost interesting visit by some christians who wanted to teach about the truth of christmas. I reflexively winced and told them "no thank you, I'm an atheist. I celebrate christmas because I'm culturally christian, not by belief.
They thanked me, asked me if I knew that Jesus wasn't born in December. "That's right," I said, "born in the springtime."
"Do you know why it's in december?" they asked.
"Yeah, We celebrate it now for the same reason we use christmas trees and eggs and easter bunnies. The catholics did it that way to convert other religions".
They smiled, thanked me and went on their way. That was better than I was expecting from door-to-door christian evangelists.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 12:14:21 pm
- We're minority, and a weird one at that
- People are bastards, and like to pick on minorities; weird ones especially
- We don't like to be picked on
- So we get into a country of our own, where for once we are the majority
- Our new neighbours don't like that, because the land we live on belonged to their ancestors once
And here comes the less official part:
- So we kill the shit out of them in retaliation for every fart they make in our general direction
- It's Deterrence, baby!
Post by: Sinned on December 17, 2010, 12:41:49 pm
What's the general opinion of the acts of the Israelites during the Old Testament? Cruel?
First try at a best seller. They did ok, but they ended up rewriting parts and adding stuff, they also redid one of the main characters renaming Joseph to Jesus. He did way better with the younger crowd and teenagers.
It sold better but after a while they just bundled it up and it took off, sales where through the roof.
Oh yeah, Mel Gibson bought the movie rights, I liked the book more. LOTR is way better in book or movie. I would get that for christmas instead of the "Bible, the Directors Cut".
Post by: fqllve on December 17, 2010, 01:06:13 pm
Cause I remember this video a guy made. He included the cruelty that Christianity caused. I may be wrong about this but. What! I've read or had read to me, near the entirety of the Old Testament. Not much vast cruelty.
Christianity != Judaism
Really, I don't understand why Christians feel the need to include the Old Testament. It's blatantly mythological. It has 600 some commandments that they don't follow. And a large part of it is a folk history of the Israelites.
The New Testament seems like a pretty self-contained holy book to me.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 01:07:50 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 17, 2010, 01:13:33 pm
- Our new neighbours don't like that, because the land we live on belonged to
their ancestors oncethem until the land was arbitrarily declared ours
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2010, 01:15:54 pm
It tells the beginning of Christianity. And besides I for one still follow the Sabbath as layed out in the Old Testament.I'm following one right now: "From here on out, every Friday is a holiday." - FSM
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 01:18:10 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 17, 2010, 01:28:55 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 17, 2010, 01:34:19 pm
Wasn't the friday/ saturday sabbath something Jesus specifically broke...?
No biggy, turned out he's a Catholic I think and they are all about forgiveness anway. Two Hail Marys and it's a done deal and forgiven. ;)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 01:36:01 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 01:37:54 pm
Are you implying that I'm anti-zionist, or declaring that you yourself are anti-zonist?
- Our new neighbours don't like that, because the land we live on belonged to
their ancestors oncethem until the land was arbitrarily declared ours
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 02:05:32 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 17, 2010, 02:24:34 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 02:27:03 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 17, 2010, 02:31:19 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 02:32:13 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 02:33:51 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 02:34:26 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 17, 2010, 03:03:11 pm
Fine. My stance is Israel belongs to the Jews.
Really curious, what do you think they should do with the non-jews living in Israel/Palestine then?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 17, 2010, 03:06:47 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 03:33:36 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 03:59:01 pm
(google some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem)) Apparently now everybody claims to be a son of Sem. Antisemitism just hit a new record.
Post by: Shades on December 17, 2010, 04:03:03 pm
Fine. My stance is Israel belongs to the Jews.
You can't like, own, land man...
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2010, 04:11:22 pm
Also, Arabs are Sons of Sem (Shem). So antisemitism hits them, too.Son of Sam?
(google some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem)) Apparently now everybody claims to be a son of Sem. Antisemitism just hit a new record.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 04:12:52 pm
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2010, 04:13:36 pm
It's unclear who is on what side. Please state your beliefs next post.I am on my side.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 17, 2010, 04:16:28 pm
It's unclear who is on what side. Please state your beliefs next post.
What do "sides" matter, and what would that accomplish? Does the "side" with more supporters "win"?
Post by: Sinned on December 17, 2010, 04:19:11 pm
It's unclear who is on what side. Please state your beliefs next post.I am on my side.
We are a like, I see possibilities here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvM-WQP7SOw
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 04:53:43 pm
No, but it's still a game you can "win". I like playing it with people who think not winning is equal to losing.It's unclear who is on what side. Please state your beliefs next post.What do "sides" matter, and what would that accomplish? Does the "side" with more supporters "win"?
So here we go: Usually, I believe in a singular God, but am agnostic about her nature. I usually do not recognise the state of Israel. I practice believing the craziest stuff just for fun. Like atheism.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 17, 2010, 04:57:27 pm
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2010, 05:02:36 pm
I practice believing the craziest stuff just for fun. Like religion.There, FTFY. ;)
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 05:06:40 pm
There, FTFY. ;)Oh, that's such a sharp comeback that you rendered me utterly speechless. [more non-constructive cynicism (which was actually very funny) deleted here]
As for "I'm on my side"... Nobody is not on his own side. So yeah, that answer makes you a pretty dull person who has nothing to offer. Try again, we all know there's more in you. (<- not cynical, I meant that)
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 17, 2010, 05:09:43 pm
I practice believing the craziest stuff just for fun.
I still say that's not actual belief. If it is, you have serious psychological problems.
Post by: Siquo on December 17, 2010, 05:15:13 pm
I still say that's not actual belief. If it is, you have serious psychological problems."You only made the fires worse!!"
"Worse... or Better?" :D
Post by: Andir on December 17, 2010, 05:25:37 pm
As for "I'm on my side"... Nobody is not on his own side. So yeah, that answer makes you a pretty dull person who has nothing to offer. Try again, we all know there's more in you. (<- not cynical, I meant that)If wanting to stay out of conflict makes me dull... I'm the antithesis of my garnet avatar.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 18, 2010, 12:00:59 am
Funny. Because I'm a stickler for these things though, Jesus was originally something like Yeshua (the pronunciation in Mel Gibsons crazy film), which if it was translated in the standard form would be Joshua. Out of the two, I'd pick the movie though any day (perhaps gore edited down to pg-13). The story was a bit lame, but the sound and visuals were amazing.What's the general opinion of the acts of the Israelites during the Old Testament? Cruel?
First try at a best seller. They did ok, but they ended up rewriting parts and adding stuff, they also redid one of the main characters renaming Joseph to Jesus. He did way better with the younger crowd and teenagers.
It sold better but after a while they just bundled it up and it took off, sales where through the roof.
Oh yeah, Mel Gibson bought the movie rights, I liked the book more. LOTR is way better in book or movie. I would get that for christmas instead of the "Bible, the Directors Cut".
Post by: malimbar04 on December 18, 2010, 12:28:43 am
It's unclear who is on what side. Please state your beliefs next post.I'm pretty sure we can prove that any meaningful god does not exist. I am more than positive we have proved the christian god to be a myth if the christian cannon was to be taken literally.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 12:56:37 am
Post by: malimbar04 on December 18, 2010, 01:19:15 am
Through what means would you prove this? "Jesus was originally something like Yeshua (the pronunciation in Mel Gibsons crazy film), which if it was translated in the standard form would be Joshua." Jesus is Greek for Joshua.
Originally from talking to my catholic brother, my trivia-knowing father, and some other unknown source. However, confirmed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29#Original_name_for_Jesus
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 01:22:28 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 02:35:04 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 18, 2010, 02:37:44 pm
You're not atheists, you're just agnostics without god. If you can't say "you're wrong, and you ought to change" to a believer's face, then you might just as well be one of them.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 18, 2010, 02:39:25 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 18, 2010, 02:41:59 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 02:43:50 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 18, 2010, 02:48:27 pm
I have no intention of stopping! :D
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 02:50:45 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 18, 2010, 02:51:16 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 18, 2010, 02:52:03 pm
Oh, the lulz.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 02:56:06 pm
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven."
That's just the first part.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 03:15:39 pm
What goal? To discuss a hand-picked collection of inane details on the fringe of the whole "atheism" business? To let a bunch of weak atheists explain how they're very tolerant and understanding but they kind of politely disagree within certain limits?That isn't what weak atheism means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism)
The only for sure athesit I saw here was just some punk that told people to keep religion to themselves.I am also an atheist, just to clarify that Shrugging Khan is not the only one here.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 03:18:06 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 18, 2010, 03:22:41 pm
Implicit atheism usually goes under some other name.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 03:25:54 pm
I would prefer to be near an implicit atheist rather than explicit. The latter frankly come off as confrontational asses. Don't mean to offend anyone here, but yeah.If you've ever known about religion and decided to be an atheist, you're explicit. Implcit Weak Athests are those who have never been exposed to religion, and thus don't think about it (babies and the like). I assume you're trying to say that you'd rather be an Explicit Weak Atheist than an Explicit Strong Atheist.
I don't see how it's confrontational to claim that we have sufficent evidence such that saying there are no gods is valid. Religion has failed over history time and time again, to the point where my doubt over the matter has evaporated due to a consistant inablity to bring evidence for god to the table. That is why I'm a strong atheist.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 03:27:12 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 18, 2010, 03:29:46 pm
But you can easily not believe in them due to lack of evidence. Which would make you a weak, explicit atheist.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 03:37:35 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 03:37:56 pm
But how can you prove their is no G-d? How would you go about doing that?Here's the thing: You can't. It requires infinite knowlage to disprove god, because the beliefs and requirements of god can be changed at will by those promoting him, but we can't have the infinite knowlage required to disprove all possible claims of god. You Can't Prove A Negative. (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/%22You_Can't_Prove_a_Negative%22)
I can argue with believers in a god untill they've been forced out of human knowlage, but then there's nothing to do. They'll keep arguing in favor of their god from things that humans do not know, and may never. These claims are both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, so they don't matter in terms of our reality.
In addition, I don't have to prove there's no god. If I claimed that invisible, undetectable rats were preparing to knaw on your toes once you go to sleep, would you believe me on principle? No, of course not, and no one would ask you to. I'd have to prove that the ghost rats are stalking you, and in the same vein, believers in a god must prove his existance before we accept it as real, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on theists, not atheists.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 03:48:12 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 18, 2010, 03:51:30 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 03:53:35 pm
If there is nothing than how could it be a fact since a fact is a noun and therefore must be something....what?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 03:55:37 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 18, 2010, 04:28:19 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 04:36:00 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 04:37:03 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 18, 2010, 04:40:20 pm
When I meant rabid I meant waking youtube videos for their cause, saying there is no G-d EVERY SINGLE TIME someone mentions religion. This form of atheist often starts fights over the internet. As an example Shrugging Khan is very good.I dunno, QualiaSoup makes videos about it, and he's not particularly rabid.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 04:42:19 pm
Post by: Shades on December 18, 2010, 05:08:45 pm
But how can you prove their is no G-d? How would you go about doing that?
The same way you 'prove' there is no santa, no flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/) (wikipeida) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), no invisible pink unicorn (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com) (wikipeida) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) and no celestial teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:10:54 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 05:13:41 pm
No one prays to Santa Claus.Yes they do. Young children practically beg Santa to give them what they want.
Post by: Glowcat on December 18, 2010, 05:15:30 pm
But this is more complicated than that. No one prays to Santa Claus.
Unless you count those children writing their requests every year.
But your objection is a non sequitur anyways. Why would praying make the determination of existence different?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:16:59 pm
"In the words of Neil Fallon.
Got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church
Even the Mole People, they got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church"
But this is more complicated than that. No one prays to Santa Claus.
Unless you count those children writing their requests every year.
But your objection is a non sequitur anyways. Why would praying make the determination of existence different?
Because no one defends the existence of Santa.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 18, 2010, 05:19:25 pm
Good point. Here's my stance on atheism.I don't get it. Are you trying to say that atheists want religion? Most of us don't.
"In the words of Neil Fallon.
Got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church
Even the Mole People, they got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church"
Post by: Shades on December 18, 2010, 05:19:35 pm
Because no one defends the existence of Santa.
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/EasyE/texts/proofsanta.html
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:20:51 pm
Good point. Here's my stance on atheism.I don't get it. Are you trying to say that atheists want religion? Most of us don't.
"In the words of Neil Fallon.
Got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church
Even the Mole People, they got to get religion
They gotta join that underground church"
That was from a song.
Because no one defends the existence of Santa.
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/EasyE/texts/proofsanta.html
That's gotta be a joke.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 18, 2010, 05:29:16 pm
But this is more complicated than that. No one prays to Santa Claus.Do you not believe in the power of the Jolly One?
Heretic!
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:30:36 pm
But this is more complicated than that. No one prays to Santa Claus.Do you not believe in the power of the Jolly One?
Heretic!
My advice there would be to open up you're own tax exempt church.
Post by: Glowcat on December 18, 2010, 05:41:15 pm
Because no one defends the existence of Santa.
Nobody defends the existence of Zeus either. Not anymore at least. Did he cease to exist when people stopped defending him?
How about the existence of all the deities or variations of the monotheistic deity? How about non-theistic supernatural beliefs? Or Pseudo-scientific beliefs such as Astrology, Extraterrestrial Visitors, or Alternative Medicine? Do you give those ideas credence simply because people passionately defend them?
Why is your particular idea of the supernatural more valid than other peoples'?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 08:30:03 pm
Post by: Toady One on December 18, 2010, 09:25:43 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on December 18, 2010, 09:38:23 pm
Think about it, both are equally absurd. If one finds fault with the idea of the creation of Minerva then one must also find fault with the creation of Jesus.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 10:12:30 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 18, 2010, 10:17:51 pm
Shrugging Khan has been muted for a week, just now. I hope people can keep it together.And the forum becomes much quieter.
Anyways, It's relatively easy to disprove the existence of god as long as god has a definition to compare to. I've said this before in this thread (several times). If god has any meaning at all for us, then he's testable.
A few tests so far:
Does the god answer prayers for health?
- Answer is no
Is the world flat?
- The answer is no
Is hell below us?
- The answer is no
Was the earth created in 6 days?
- The answer is no
Does believing in god cause peace?
- The answer is no
Are worshipers guaranteed to win in battle?
- The answer is no
Do worshipers live longer than non-worshipers?
- The answer is no
Are people made directly out of dust?
- The answer is no
Are bats birds?
- the answer is no
In fact, we know so much about the universe that I hardly see any room left for god. It's not only that no evidence exists for god's existence, it's that every scientific claim that came from the god hypothesis has been proven false, or at best not requiring a god to happen.
Post by: Bauglir on December 18, 2010, 11:51:17 pm
Overall, though, it seems to me that you have to take different stances with what you believe, and what you think other people need to believe. It's one thing to determine that you believe there is no God, but it's another to insist upon that to somebody who does believe it. I think a complete lack of evidence is sufficient for my disbelief, but is insufficient for undermining somebody else's beliefs. Especially because, as far as they're concerned, their life experiences have provided evidence, and no amount of debate can convince them that a lack of evidence that God does not exist will trump their own experience that suggests he does. The best you are likely to do is get somebody to admit that God may not exist, but probably does. That's my experience, at least.
Also, I apologize for my laxness in paying attention to this thread. Arguments always seem to happen 2 hours before I get on the forums and then wrap up before I have a chance to say or do anything. It's good that they end quickly, but I hope they occur less frequently in the future.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 18, 2010, 11:53:28 pm
-Stuff-
None of this matters
The only thing that does, is when you look up at the sky, and begin to contemplate its vastness do you go "Wow, there is no way something this amazing could have happened just by chance" or "Wow, its amazing how all of this happened just by chance"
Post by: Earthquake Damage on December 19, 2010, 12:46:28 am
"Wow, its amazing how all of this happened just by chance"
If by "this happened just by chance" you're referring to the initial conditions like physical laws and constants, I'll leave it alone.
If you instead mean something more along the lines of "events are random", I'd call that a misconception (in much the same manner as "we couldn't have evolved by chance therefore intelligent design"). By all appearances, all things are fairly deterministic consequences of the initial conditions and rules of the game. I'd say strictly so, but that's very debatable, though it's obvious the random element is bounded.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 19, 2010, 12:47:53 am
It also worked.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 19, 2010, 01:32:26 am
For starters. The compatibility of the Big Bang Theory and creationism.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 19, 2010, 01:56:13 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 19, 2010, 02:01:16 am
The idea of the big bang and creationism are not inherently polar opposites. I see the possibility that 1. G-d caused the big bang. 2. G-d has done this numerous times and this is just one in a long line.
This idea goes with the theory of evolution as well.
Post by: Shades on December 19, 2010, 05:16:29 am
The only thing that does, is when you look up at the sky, and begin to contemplate its vastness do you go "Wow, there is no way something this amazing could have happened just by chance" or "Wow, its amazing how all of this happened just by chance"
If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.
Note I put 'chance' in quotes as it's not an accurate view of how evolution works, although it is the most common.
The idea of the big bang and creationism are not inherently polar opposites. I see the possibility that 1. G-d caused the big bang. 2. G-d has done this numerous times and this is just one in a long line.
Creationism is a polar opposite of the big bang theory, however this doesn't mean point 1 is wrong, just that it's not creationism, at least as worded even if it's a form of creation. Please do not try and claim otherwise without understanding what the creationism cult are attempt to suggest is the case.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 19, 2010, 07:11:34 am
If you consider G-d to be a wizard than I'm fine with that.It's a joke based on a tvtrope (basically "handwave anything you can't explain").
Post by: malimbar04 on December 19, 2010, 10:46:54 am
-Stuff-
None of this matters
The only thing that does, is when you look up at the sky, and begin to contemplate its vastness do you go "Wow, there is no way something this amazing could have happened just by chance" or "Wow, its amazing how all of this happened just by chance"
That is a (bad) justification for a god, but it's not a justification for any specific god. The only god that such reasoning even somewhat supports is the so vague as to be useless anyways. Such a god doesn't need to be worshiped, and certainly isn't Yahweh or Jesus or Vishnu.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 19, 2010, 11:17:30 am
That is a (bad) justification for a god, but it's not a justification for any specific god.
Blah..??..?.
Its not a justification for a God, its the gut feeing you get when you know there is, or isn't a God. You can make up justifications later to become the focus of hatred for everyone that doesn't agree with you.
You missed the point of that post completely.
Post by: thobal on December 19, 2010, 11:35:57 am
Anyways.........
Whether by chance or by G-O-D, the big bang is bunk. Steady State is the only formula that makes any sense.
The argument by the religious is that something cant come from nothing.
The response is usually "Big Bang!"
But that just avoids the question of what is it all from. Most answers do.
The only complete philosophy is the Steady State Hypothesis. All that ever is is and shall ever be. No supreme being but itself and none other allowed. Big Bangs need not apply.
The Anti-Hoyle at its best.
Post by: Bauglir on December 19, 2010, 11:48:40 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 19, 2010, 01:04:09 pm
The only thing that does, is when you look up at the sky, and begin to contemplate its vastness do you go "Wow, there is no way something this amazing could have happened just by chance" or "Wow, its amazing how all of this happened just by chance"
If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.
Note I put 'chance' in quotes as it's not an accurate view of how evolution works, although it is the most common.The idea of the big bang and creationism are not inherently polar opposites. I see the possibility that 1. G-d caused the big bang. 2. G-d has done this numerous times and this is just one in a long line.
Creationism is a polar opposite of the big bang theory, however this doesn't mean point 1 is wrong, just that it's not creationism, at least as worded even if it's a form of creation. Please do not try and claim otherwise without understanding what the creationism cult are attempt to suggest is the case.
What are they attempting to suggest? And aren't I part of that cult?
Post by: PenguinOverlord on December 19, 2010, 02:30:32 pm
Post by: thobal on December 19, 2010, 02:51:14 pm
Yeah, but steady state is observably and provably wrong.
I was made to understand that an information barrier prevented us from recovering any facts from before 10~ billion years ago. Humans have no idea how long the universe has truly existed nor what proportion of this existence we have available to study.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 19, 2010, 03:18:17 pm
Just close this.just ban this guy.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 19, 2010, 03:20:24 pm
The information barrier you speak of is directly related to the fact that the universe does in fact have a finite age. You can't see anything further than ~13 billion ly because the light from whatever's further away did not have enough time to reach us yet. If the universe were infinitely old, then there would be no such barrier.Yeah, but steady state is observably and provably wrong.
I was made to understand that an information barrier prevented us from recovering any facts from before 10~ billion years ago. Humans have no idea how long the universe has truly existed nor what proportion of this existence we have available to study.
But maybe you're confusing the age of the universe with it's "extent", which might just as well be infinite, and we indeed do not know, or will be ever able to know(other than waiting for the light to reach us) what lies outside the observable limit.
Furthermore, the observation of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the measurements of distant objects' redshift are strongly supporting the expanding universe.
Steady state also does not make much sense due to the unsustainability of such a perfect equilibrium(nothing falls unto each other).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 19, 2010, 03:20:43 pm
Just everyone calm down, we have no need to fight.Just close this.just ban this guy.
Post by: thobal on December 19, 2010, 03:27:40 pm
And dont forget to deliver that ham to Ichabod Crane's house.
The information barrier you speak of is directly related to the fact that the universe does in fact have a finite age. You can't see anything further than ~13 billion ly because the light from whatever's further away did not have enough time to reach us yet. If the universe were infinitely old, then there would be no such barrier.Yeah, but steady state is observably and provably wrong.
I was made to understand that an information barrier prevented us from recovering any facts from before 10~ billion years ago. Humans have no idea how long the universe has truly existed nor what proportion of this existence we have available to study.
But maybe you're confusing the age of the universe with it's "extent", which might just as well be infinite, and we indeed do not know, or will be ever able to know(other than waiting for the light to reach us) what lies outside the observable limit.
Furthermore, the observation of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the measurements of distant objects' redshift are strongly supporting the expanding universe.
Steady state also does not make much sense due to the unsustainability of such a perfect equilibrium(nothing falls unto each other).
Yes, but that's all assuming that the universe and all existence spawned out of nothingness ~13 billion years ago.
However, if that is the case, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some sort of new "universe"(though I dont see why anyone would call it that, it just being another part of the first one) will spawn itself out of the heat death or big ripped ruins of this "universe". This would mean that any period of time that does not resemble this one could be merely written off as a passing phase, particularly because only the most exceptional observer would be around to write off anything.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 19, 2010, 03:32:28 pm
Just everyone calm down, we have no need to fight.Just close this.just ban this guy.
we're not fighting, we're not even participating in the discussion... i'm lurking around and enjoying a relatively healthy discussion, and that comment hit me as passing pigeon's crapping.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 19, 2010, 03:34:17 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 19, 2010, 03:38:17 pm
Yes, but that's all assuming that the universe and all existence spawned out of nothingness ~13 billion years ago.Yeah, well, possible I guess? But that's hardly a steady state model.
However, if that is the case, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some sort of new "universe"(though I dont see why anyone would call it that, it just being another part of the first one) will spawn itself out of the heat death or big ripped ruins of this "universe". This would mean that any period of time that does not resemble this one could be merely written off as a passing phase, particularly because only the most exceptional observer would be around to write off anything.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 19, 2010, 03:41:55 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 19, 2010, 03:44:10 pm
(Total disclosure, I just noticed this thread and 50~ pages are too many to read while I set up my soap box.)Make sure you read the 300+ pages of the previous thread as well. ;)
If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.That's quite a statement as A: you paid no money and B: until we provably can do a better job, we can't say that. And even then, how would we know if our creation of "better" wasn't God's purpose for humans all along?
Right now I'm attempting to program a simulation of the world (yes really, no not accurate and yes very abstracted), but the sheer variety of Nature is boggling. Trying to match all that is next to impossible.
Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 19, 2010, 03:49:39 pm
So you up the ante by throwing dog shit?
eh, i figured a sarcastic remark would be a more fitting response to a three word comment than an elaborate apology of the thread(as in "Socrates Apology", not as an "i apopogise" apology, my non native vocabulary and sleep deprived intelect failed to provide a better word)
Post by: Glowcat on December 19, 2010, 03:59:37 pm
Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.
I guess Omnipotence doesn't go as far as it used to.
Or are you just assuming that the way things are are the way they are 'supposed' to be? Supposed to be for what? Why do you think your existence is so important that its inclusion was a given?
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 19, 2010, 04:04:39 pm
Or are you just assuming that the way things are are the way they are 'supposed' to be? Supposed to be for what?We've got our Entertainment Centers built right next to our Sewage Disposal System. It was supposed to be kinky.
Post by: Siquo on December 19, 2010, 04:06:11 pm
Supposed to be for what?If we were told, that'd be spoiling the ending. ;D
Post by: Leafsnail on December 19, 2010, 04:07:44 pm
Yes, but that's all assuming that the universe and all existence spawned out of nothingness ~13 billion years ago.No, it's evidence for the universe beginning its expansion 13 billion years ago.
I don't think any Big Bang theories have a time of "nothing". Apart from anything else, there wouldn't have been time before it.
Post by: Glowcat on December 19, 2010, 04:16:28 pm
Supposed to be for what?If we were told, that'd be spoiling the ending. ;D
If you don't understand what this existence would be designed for then you have no business claiming that it was designed.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 19, 2010, 04:29:26 pm
Supposed to be for what?Personal entertainment?
You know, like an ant farm.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 20, 2010, 10:38:32 am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a combination of two arguments. The first is intelligent design versus natural order (which is easily refuted), and the second is that the because nature is extremely complex and beyond our complete understanding, god must have done it.If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.That's quite a statement as A: you paid no money and B: until we provably can do a better job, we can't say that. And even then, how would we know if our creation of "better" wasn't God's purpose for humans all along?
Right now I'm attempting to program a simulation of the world (yes really, no not accurate and yes very abstracted), but the sheer variety of Nature is boggling. Trying to match all that is next to impossible.
Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.
The god of the gaps can only be refuted when we are so intelligent and powerful that we are gods ourselves. Until then, there will always be a gap for some obscure god to fill in. Even though the gaps we currently have are large though, they are ones that don't directly interfere with our lives. While a being could inhabit those areas, it's not a being that's worth worshiping. If no one worships it, and it doesn't affect our actions or environment in any way, then why are we still calling it a god of ours? We could just as easily be a fringe fecal byproduct of their microscopic creation 20 galaxies over.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 06:11:25 pm
Watchmaker! Watchmaker! (http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html)Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a combination of two arguments. The first is intelligent design versus natural order (which is easily refuted), and the second is that the because nature is extremely complex and beyond our complete understanding, god must have done it.If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.That's quite a statement as A: you paid no money and B: until we provably can do a better job, we can't say that. And even then, how would we know if our creation of "better" wasn't God's purpose for humans all along?
Right now I'm attempting to program a simulation of the world (yes really, no not accurate and yes very abstracted), but the sheer variety of Nature is boggling. Trying to match all that is next to impossible.
Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 06:32:41 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2010, 06:40:11 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 06:44:10 pm
Still not seeing how the watchmaker argument is inherently invalid. It's easily refuted with evidence, yes, but if you can show that the p-value of something happening randomly is very unlikely, it's a very good starting place. It's easy to say "It obviously works in this case" and "It obviously doesn't work in that case" in hindsight.It's non sequitur. You can't say "this is designed because it is complex". It's invalid because you can't support the line of thought. Show me the connection between designed and complex. Show me that something cannot be complex without being designed. For an example taken from Wikipedia, the "Mandelbrot analogy". Fractals are complex, right? Are they designed? Nope.
Just read the comic too, it will make everything clear :P
Well, the point is that, logically, it makes no sense. We don't think of things as created because they're complex.Not created, designed. There is a huge difference there.
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 06:46:57 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 06:56:59 pm
There's fields where it is perfectly valid. Archaeology, for example. "Well, we don't see any major artifacts in this area, no direct signs of long-term human habitation, and these boulders are all of local origin...but isn't it really suspicious that there's sixteen of them arranged in a perfect circle?"Excuse me, but how is a circle complex at all? The comic I linked uses almost the exact same argument. An object is not designed because of its complexity.
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 07:32:37 pm
Okay, fine, better example. Flat rocks stacked on the beach. If you see four rocks stacked neatly on top of each other in the sand you might say "Okay, that's cool, it could have happened naturally", but if you see rocks stacked ten high in a few columns all on one log, you have to say "Someone put that there". One can argue that those arrangements were designed because of their complexity.
Post by: Glowcat on December 20, 2010, 07:58:04 pm
Okay, fine, better example. Flat rocks stacked on the beach. If you see four rocks stacked neatly on top of each other in the sand you might say "Okay, that's cool, it could have happened naturally", but if you see rocks stacked ten high in a few columns all on one log, you have to say "Someone put that there". One can argue that those arrangements were designed because of their complexity.
No. I'd say that arrangement was formed by a conscious entity because it's incredibly unlikely that non-conscious natural forces in the area would produce such an arrangement and because I knew of an agent (humans) who would be able to create such an arrangement, and in fact do such things regularly. It isn't about being complex, since we're talking about a few rocks put on top of each other, but because I haven't encountered any non-artificial force which could produce such a thing.
If watches grew on trees and I encountered one by its lonesome, I wouldn't know whether it was made by a human or by nature. Sure, I could look around for any watch trees that may have been the source, but I couldn't be sure either way. A real world example would be smoothed stones by the beach. Both nature and humans create smooth stones, but since the stone is by the beach my first assumption would be that it was formed into its current shape by the ocean.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 08:02:20 pm
1. A camera is complex, thus it is designed.
2. The human eye is complex, thus it is designed.
The watchmaker argument attempts to come up with a reason why it is complex. It comes to the false conclusion that it must be designed. Look back to a fractal, complex? Yes. Designed? No. So why is it complex?
Not to mention the problem of the designer itself. Assume the argument is true. A watchmaker is much more complex than a watch, it must have a designer, yes? Creationists would say that it was a god or gods. Now what about them? Shouldn't the gods themselves be designed, following the argument?
Post by: Virex on December 20, 2010, 08:06:45 pm
The watchmaker argument attempts to come up with a reason why it is complex. It comes to the false conclusion that it must be designed. Look back to a fractal, complex? Yes. Designed? No. So why is it complex?Who says God didn't design fractals, or more likely, the whole of mathematics itself? Also, what keeps an omnipotent deity from designing itself?
Not to mention the problem of the designer itself. Assume the argument is true. A watchmaker is much more complex than a watch, it must have a designer, yes? Creationists would say that it was a god or gods. Now what about them? Shouldn't the gods themselves be designed, following the argument?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2010, 08:09:28 pm
"A is X because of Y. B is Y. Therefore B is X".
"Coffee is nice to drink because it's hot. Lava is hot. Therefore lava is nice to drink".
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 08:10:15 pm
If watches grew on trees and I encountered one by its lonesome, I wouldn't know whether it was made by a human or by nature. Sure, I could look around for any watch trees that may have been the source, but I couldn't be sure either way. A real world example would be smoothed stones by the beach. Both nature and humans create smooth stones, but since the stone is by the beach my first assumption would be that it was formed into its current shape by the ocean.Hmm, okay. I like those caveats.
So what happens when you see an arrangement that is incredibly unlikely that non-conscious forces would produce, but you don't know of any conscious actor who could do it? Say, finding a giant stone obelisk on the moon.
Although, since we don't have any smoking guns that are smaller than "the universe happens to support life"... Crud. I'm going back to deism again, which is boring. Still, hypothetically speaking, what happens to the watchmaker argument when you find something that appears neither human-producable nor nature-producable?
What about a pile of rocks is complex? The reason that you could say that it is designed is because they don't occur naturally. The point is, the argument is non sequitur.I don't see where you're getting that. I *very explicitly* did not argue that the human eye was designed. I outright said that the watchmaker argument is falsifiable given any proof. My argument is that it is a valid starting point BEFORE significant proof is established in either direction.
Are you saying that if you see a pile of flat rocks stacked on a log, far above the waterline, your first instinct is to say "Wow, how amazing that nature formed that"? What about the Pyramids of Egypt?
Given no in-depth information beyond surface inspection--and that's all we really have about the underlying origin of the universe--I don't think it's reasonable to approach every single damn thing and say "Golly, nature sure is wacky".
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 08:23:20 pm
Quote
That bizarre rock formation is most likely designed. Would you call that rock formation complex? Not especially. Then what is it about this rock formation that makes it appear designed? Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance.
It's a complete non sequiter logic wise, too.Listen to this guy. This is another basis why the argument is false. The argument falsely arrives at the conclusion that A is designed because it is complex. Obviously this is false in many examples.
"A is X because of Y. B is Y. Therefore B is X".
"Coffee is nice to drink because it's hot. Lava is hot. Therefore lava is nice to drink".
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 08:46:37 pm
Post by: Glowcat on December 20, 2010, 08:59:48 pm
So what happens when you see an arrangement that is incredibly unlikely that non-conscious forces would produce, but you don't know of any conscious actor who could do it? Say, finding a giant stone obelisk on the moon.
When I said humans I was simplifying from any conscious tool-using entity. If I didn't know any natural process that could create the obelisk then the more likely answer would be an unknown tool-user similar to humans.
As CrownOfFire is saying, there are many non-artificial objects of great complexity all round us, and yet we don't confuse between the non-artificial and the artificial based upon that complexity. That we could even have an argument about design requires a distinction between the artificial and natural: a distinction which would become nonsense if this entire universe was designed.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 20, 2010, 09:02:31 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 09:12:05 pm
Hmm. Okay, I see that it is a logical fallacy to go straight from point A to point B there.Yeah, the argument is oddly worded, because it assumes that the argument is true. It says "A is complex because it is designed", but when you're attempting to prove it, you have to reverse it into "A is designed because it is complex". In other words, you have to prove that something complex must be designed before you say that X is designed because it is complex.
It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these :D
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 09:17:51 pm
This thread has become a lot more philosophical since Shrugging Khan left.I know, isn't it nice?
And I think I have a full understanding of that counter-argument, now. I will fully cede the Watchmaker argument.
I wanted very much to say that the Mandelbrot set *can* be argued to be designed, not on the basis of complexity, but instead on the basis of beauty. But I think the correct response is that its beauty was only created in the eyes of its observers; there wasn't anything special about it until we put it up into a picture, rasterized it. So I kinda scored an 'own goal', there...
It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these :DI think I missed where you stated your beliefs; could you summarize or link? I'm curious.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 20, 2010, 09:24:58 pm
But anyway. I really like the watch maker argument. What do ya know. I learned something.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2010, 09:36:13 pm
I wanted very much to say that the Mandelbrot set *can* be argued to be designed, not on the basis of complexity, but instead on the basis of beauty. But I think the correct response is that its beauty was only created in the eyes of its observers; there wasn't anything special about it until we put it up into a picture, rasterized it. So I kinda scored an 'own goal', there...Well, yeah, and we're gonna find the things in our environment "beautiful" or we wouldn't even have the concept in the first place.
And the total non sequitur (my maths teacher would call it "Assuming what you're trying to prove") stands, whatever quality or objects you're using.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 09:39:24 pm
I don't think I have stated my beliefs before, so what kind of beliefs would you like to know? In general though, I prefer to keep most of my beliefs to myself (as religion should be), but I'm fine with sharing several things, depending on what they are.It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these :DI think I missed where you stated your beliefs; could you summarize or link? I'm curious.
Post by: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 09:47:16 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 20, 2010, 10:11:10 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F
Post by: Glowcat on December 20, 2010, 10:16:12 pm
I think he means Spinoza's god:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F
Or maybe Einstein's Naturalistic Pantheism.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 20, 2010, 10:21:00 pm
Quote from: A.Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
Post by: Glowcat on December 20, 2010, 10:28:56 pm
Which is the same:Quote from: A.EinsteinI believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
I seem to recall another quote from Einstein wherein which he clarified that what he believed in was not quite the same as Spinoza, although it was very similar. I pulled the following from Wikiquote:
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. - From a letter to Murray W. Gross, 26 April 1947
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 20, 2010, 10:30:32 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 20, 2010, 10:30:46 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 11:05:07 pm
Well, you said a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design. Does that mean your belief system uses a god or gods that exist, but which did not create the universe, or are perhaps themselves part of a natural creation? What's their role, are they in any way connected to human existence?Whether the gods existed before the universe started or not is irrelevant (for all it matters, they could have created the universe and left it alone). The one thing I am against is intelligent design of anything. The gods are largely neutral and natural. They are outside of the universe, which makes them transcendent, but they're also immanent. It's kind of hard to explain without completely giving away what religion I believe in (something that I'd rather not do). I'm actually purposefully leaving out a large part of my religion avoid doing this. I guess you could say that they're part of natural creation, sort of, maybe. I think my views could be most accurately described as... maybe pantheistic. The gods are in everything (immanent), but they also transcend the universe. Like I said, it's hard to explain without giving away my religion.
Post by: Glowcat on December 20, 2010, 11:08:56 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 11:13:44 pm
Sounds like Hinduism.Except that it's not ;)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 20, 2010, 11:14:20 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 11:41:55 pm
Scientology? Nah!Yes, I'm actually a Scientologist ::)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 20, 2010, 11:44:02 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 20, 2010, 11:48:02 pm
Tell me if I'm prying too much but.... Seriously?Please note the rolling eyes :P
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 20, 2010, 11:50:19 pm
Everyone's favorite scientologist.
Post by: Micro102 on December 21, 2010, 05:13:39 am
Post by: Sowelu on December 21, 2010, 05:23:29 am
Spoiler: Scientology (click to show/hide)
Post by: Micro102 on December 21, 2010, 05:27:18 am
Wow.
Post by: Sowelu on December 21, 2010, 05:32:07 am
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 06:07:30 am
In reverse: I find a watch that doesn't tell time correctly. I conclude from that, that it was not designed but occurred naturally because it's imperfect. (Even though it tells time perfectly, just in mars-days, but I was unable to see that at that time).
Post by: Glowcat on December 21, 2010, 07:14:52 am
Wow, what a strawman. I attack the statement "Because it is imperfect (in some way that I can imagine but not fully grasp), it cannot be designed", and it turns into the standard watchmaker argument.
In reverse: I find a watch that doesn't tell time correctly. I conclude from that, that it was not designed but occurred naturally because it's imperfect. (Even though it tells time perfectly, just in mars-days, but I was unable to see that at that time).
You are the one who began establishing arbitrary criteria for a supposed super-agent's design. While perceived imperfections don't disprove a designer, and perfection is even meaningless without first determining a desire, I believe the point Shades was getting at was that if this universe was designed it has managed to be indistinguishable from the non-artificial ("chance") and it shows no apparent purpose of design. If there is a designer of some sort then its interests are not at all similar to our own.
In this case you found an object that you don't understand and it doesn't look like it does anything in particular besides exist, and yet you have decided that somebody must have designed it to do... something.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 07:19:00 am
Post by: Glowcat on December 21, 2010, 07:28:51 am
Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.
Why do you believe purpose precedes existence? I would imagine that you often improvise with tools that weren't designed with a certain action in mind and yet use them fulfill an immediate need of yours. Design is only the action of shaping something (not necessarily an object) to be better fit for a particular desire. I have never observed purpose as anything more than a spontaneous and transient motivation ushered into being on the willful part of an agent.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2010, 07:33:16 am
Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.I don't think that's valid at all. Why do things have a purpose? Because there's a God. Why is there a God? Because things have a purpose. It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 07:35:46 am
Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.
By your argument then god itself must have a purpose and so he must have also been designed by someone. So who designed her?
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 08:01:50 am
By your argument then god itself must have a purpose and so he must have also been designed by someone. So who designed her?Yeah, I knew someone was going to call me on that ;)
Let's just say: God Over Djinn. Or, if you like, an intelligent agent can create its own purpose. "I have a purpose, therefore I am", if you will.
I don't think that's valid at all. Why do things have a purpose? Because there's a God. Why is there a God? Because things have a purpose. It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons :) You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers. I'll play the game with you if you don't believe it, but any 3-year old can do the same.
Why do you believe purpose precedes existence? I would imagine that you often improvise with tools that weren't designed with a certain action in mind and yet use them fulfill an immediate need of yours. Design is only the action of shaping something (not necessarily an object) to be better fit for a particular desire. I have never observed purpose as anything more than a spontaneous and transient motivation ushered into being on the willful part of an agent.Of course that is the most useful way of thinking about stuff: we are the ones who give purpose to anything. However, I refuse to believe that anything we have no purpose for, has no purpose at all.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2010, 08:30:04 am
Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons :) You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers....Ok, that's a staggeringly arrogant thing to say. Followed by a completely true statement.
You appear to be saying that you're above logic itself.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 08:51:05 am
You appear to be saying that you're above logic itself.Of course I am: I am a human being, not a computer.
Edit: For current values of "computer" of course, I don't want to offend our future overlords.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 21, 2010, 08:51:24 am
Therefore, he appears to have proven the ages old suspicion: if you're religious, you're not logical.
Or maybe that's just Siquo.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 08:54:24 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 21, 2010, 09:02:52 am
But surely, you could at least provide a few examples of situations where logic doesn't apply(perhaps you're going to include internet discussions?)? Unless that'd be too logical.
disclaimer: I'm aggressive-defensive, because logic is my god, and you're attacking it.
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 09:10:37 am
I don't think that's valid at all. Why do things have a purpose? Because there's a God. Why is there a God? Because things have a purpose. It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons :) You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers. I'll play the game with you if you don't believe it, but any 3-year old can do the same.
No it's not. Circular reasoning is not what 3-year olds to, they follow the why path back which is a form of investigation.
I have stated again and again that "logic" is a very smal set of rules, only useable in very specific cases, most of which virtual or hypothetical. Of course it can be useful, but to rely on it as the only means of expressing yourself is very... Spock.
You have no idea what logic means do you?
Edit: I don't know why I phrased that as a question, it's clear from your last few answers your confusing logic with something else.
Post by: Sowelu on December 21, 2010, 09:16:55 am
...however in this thread, for the most part, logic reigns. That's why it's the "atheism" thread, not the "religion" thread. Hell I'm very religious and I've had to cede to logical atheism. I've just changed my arguments away from "Logic might support my stance" to "The stated beliefs are probably false, but the rituals are beneficial".
I'm guessing that anyone who wants to talk about their religion in this thread is going to have to give some ground on the logic-and-reality parts, and acknowledge what their system lacks.
besides, if any God would get a kick out of converting to atheism for the lulz, it would be mine
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 09:21:39 am
There are arguments of fact and logic, and then there are arguments of feelings and policy. It's pointless to mix the two of them, but they're both valid.
No, they are the same don't pretend otherwise. All religions are based on logical deduction it's just the initial premises which atheism claims to be flawed.
besides, if any God would get a kick out of converting to atheism for the lulz, it would be mine
I think most capital g gods would have to be atheists as they wouldn't believe in a higher power.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 09:23:53 am
You have no idea what logic means do you?That depends on what you mean by it. I did pass my Propositional Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus) class in University when I was studying AI.
Il Palazzo: God is the end of the "why" game. A game toddlers can play, and Socrates raised it to adult levels. Eventually, there is no meaningful answer without resorting to circular reasoning.
Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?
Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.
I think most capital g gods would have to be atheists as they wouldn't believe in a higher power.That's pretty funny :) Unless it's a God-Over-Djinn-type God.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 21, 2010, 09:36:49 am
Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:Well, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?
Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 09:42:02 am
Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?
Just because person B doesn't know the answer doesn't mean the logic fails. If anything it means the human has failed which is the opposite of what you said. This also leads me back to asking if you know what logic is, and passing a class in uni doesn't mean you understand it ;) I past a lot of classes in uni, many I never turned up for.
Post by: Supercharazad on December 21, 2010, 09:44:52 am
I believe that there IS OR WAS a being that existed eternally at least until the creation of the universe "the big bang".
This god MAY OR MAY NOT still exist.
This god is PROBABLY NOT one humans can comprehend, or know about.
My reasons?
There happens to be a very fun scientific law that states the following:
"Matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, however they can be interchanged"
This means that something had to be there eternally, because something could not come into existance.
My theory is as follows:
Something existed.
Something happened to make it expand
This "something" that had "something" happen to it is probably the universe itself (or multiverse, whatever floats your tea set)
Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!
Also, lunatics are people made insane by the MOON, not by a lack of logic :P
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 09:54:46 am
Personally, I am what I call (not really sure if it's correct though) a "thiestic agnostic"
I'd call you a theist with that, you state there is or was which isn't agnostic. However I believe you are correct in using the term as you did. (I'm just saying I'd call you a theist :P).
Also, lunatics are people made insane by the MOON, not by a lack of logic :P
Only technically :P
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 09:57:50 am
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that humans are not logical. Everything we do always has a good reason(even if, often, base). The subset of mankind which does not follow logic is called "lunatics".Recent neurological research shows that more often than not we make up the reason why we did something after we actually did it, so that fails. And "having a reason" does not make one logical. If it is, then the universe-according-to-atheism, having no reason to exist, must be illogical (see? I can do petty strawmen as well) ;)
Quote
Well, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.And they call me evasive ;)
Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.
Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!Yeah, we already covered that with the 3rd generation of stars in defending the Big Bang theory, a page or 20 ago. Fun fact: hydrogen is energy, too :P
But more serious: If not comprehensible, what aspects does this "primal mover" of yours have? Does it have intelligence? Is it conscious? Was there a purpose in the creation of the Big Bang? And how do you know?
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 10:42:41 am
Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.
Again a random comparison with to something, the application of logic is in no way like trying to screw with a hammer, the point of that comparison is to imply that your using the wrong tool and if you trying to imply that about logic you again don't understand it.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 10:45:28 am
Again a random comparison with to something, the application of logic is in no way like trying to screw with a hammer, the point of that comparison is to imply that your using the wrong tool and if you trying to imply that about logic you again don't understand it.Then define logic instead of yelling "you're doing it wrong". I showed you mine, you show me yours.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 21, 2010, 10:46:02 am
Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!If I remember Weiner's "The first three minutes" correctly, the current model of early universe shows that there was only energy at the onset of the expansion, and the elementary particles were a product of creation(in the physical sense), so that's even a step further than what you said.
As for your theory: does it make any sense to ponder what "happened" to cause the Big Bang, if there was no time before Big Bang? It's like asking where's the begining of a circle.
But yeah, we weren't supposed to repeat the arguments twice in this thread.
There is always a reason following logical analysis: e.g. "I will not do this because I'm lazy" or "I will do this because I like it" are logical reasons, stemming from one's set of percieved values and logical predictions of the outcomes of one's actions. Even if at the time of making a decision a person does not choose consciously, their decision is determined by the pre-existing connections in their brains.I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that humans are not logical. Everything we do always has a good reason(even if, often, base). The subset of mankind which does not follow logic is called "lunatics".Recent neurological research shows that more often than not we make up the reason why we did something after we actually did it, so that fails. And "having a reason" does not make one logical. If it is, then the universe-according-to-atheism, having no reason to exist, must be illogical (see? I can do petty strawmen as well) ;)
As for you strawman, "reason" is an attribute of a being with a mind. It should not be applied to mindless entities, as it makes no sense.
Also, while having a reason(and being reasonable) implies being logical, being logical does not necessarily imply having a reason(p=>q, not p<=>q)
Quote
Of course you will look for your answer somewhere else, as indeed, the question is unaswerable with logic. My point is, there's no point in asking such a question in the first place. It's silly, and it should be recognized as such. If you'll abandon logic, you will find only silly answers. You can then start asking questions with no relevance to the reality, and inventing some random, and meaningless solution to the non-existing problems of yours.QuoteWell, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.And they call me evasive ;)
Still, it's a question I want answered. It just can't be answered with the tool called logic, so I need to find my answers elsewhere. I'm not saying logic sucks, it's just that it's hard to screw with a hammer.
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 10:54:36 am
Then define logic instead of yelling "you're doing it wrong". I showed you mine, you show me yours.
Shall we start with wikipedias brief overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/logic) on the subject and work from there? I note that your class on propositional calculus is linked from here under one of the forms of logical definition, namely mathematical logic.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 11:03:57 am
Also, while having a reason(and being reasonable) implies being logical, being logical does not necessarily imply having a reason(p=>q, not p<=>q)I can have illogical reasons and reasoning.
Quote
Of course you will look for your answer somewhere else, as indeed, the question is unaswerable with logic. If you'll abandon logic, you will find only silly answers. You can then start asking questions with no relevance to the reality, and inventing some random, and meaningless solution to the non-existing problems of yours.My problem is (or was) very real. Making it silly by smacking it with a hammer does not make it any less real.
Shades:
Well then, from that article: "[Logic] does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations"
There you go, a limitation on logic.
Post by: Shades on December 21, 2010, 11:12:27 am
Well then, from that article: "[Logic] does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations"
There you go, a limitation on logic.
Rather than cherry picking quotes, attempt to use context.
Also do note that even that quote is not close to what you were saying and in fact implies that it can be used exactly in the cases we are talking about.
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 11:45:04 am
Rather than cherry picking quotes, attempt to use context.How illogical ;). The only thing I said was that logic does not suffice in the case I presented, because you always end up with circular reasoning, and I extended that by saying that logic itself is limited. My cherry-picked quote points out another limitation (albeit aspecific). If you disagree, please state your disagreement in an understandable way other than "that's not logic".
Also do note that even that quote is not close to what you were saying and in fact implies that it can be used exactly in the cases we are talking about.
Also, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_logic), pick one or two or all of them for all I care, and stick with it.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 21, 2010, 11:55:27 am
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 11:59:39 am
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2010, 02:51:06 pm
Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.You're just asking an invalid question. A question doesn't deserve an answer just because it's possible to phrase it ("Why are unicorns hollow?").
Ok, Siquo. I get it. You're cherry picking certain definitions of "logic", attacking them, and then using that as an excuse to make nonsensical arguments.
Well, if logic is invalid, and circular arguments are a-ok:
Siquo is wrong because he has completely missed the point.
He has completely missed the point because he is wrong.
Perfectly valid, right?
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 03:12:36 pm
Second of all, I'm not cherry picking. There's a whole box of cherries there.
There's also no such thing as an invalid question, just questions you can't answer. Zen koans, for instance. Full of questions, and meaningful answers, but no Logic.
Just ignoring anything you can't explain (yet) is also a way of dealing with the world.
Post by: Glowcat on December 21, 2010, 03:40:09 pm
Progress is impossible where blind Faith is valued. Why even partake in a debate thread when you've already come to your conclusion and are unwilling to modify it based on argument?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2010, 04:22:59 pm
Who said anything about validity (if you mean the "logical" sense of the word). But still, you've got a point. What am I missing and where am I wrong?Hey, let's just say "all areas". Still perfectly good, right?
Basically, circular reasoning doesn't work. Even if you're making an argument based on emotion, morals or policy. What you posted was pretty much a smokescreen for "For me, God has to exist".
Which is fine, I guess, but don't try to disguise it as something more... logical.
There's also no such thing as an invalid question, just questions you can't answer.Does a nested rat despair after an inertia? When will the worked lark toe the subtle choir? Does the human assistance charter an algebra?
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 21, 2010, 04:33:27 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 21, 2010, 06:29:17 pm
Does a nested rat despair after an inertia? When will the worked lark toe the subtle choir? Does the human assistance charter an algebra?A zen koan for you:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Why even partake in a debate thread when you've already come to your conclusion and are unwilling to modify it based on argument?I am agnostic to the nature of God, not to his existence. I've changed my mind about its nature many times over the last months, thanks to these threads. The fact that someone does not start to believe what you believe for a full 100%, does not mean his beliefs do not change at all. I've learned and mused and seen and enjoyed myself in these threads. Thanks for that.
I do not presume any of you will suddenly match my beliefs. I hope not. But maybe you can make your own beliefs just a bit better (whatever "better" means for you).
Summary: I'm not sure what I'm even "defending". I haz a God. You (a general you, I'm speaking to more people here) bring logic. I say your logic is incomplete. You say that I do not understand. I say that you don't want to understand, that there is also truth in unlogic (not in ALL unlogic, strawmans). You say truth is only in logic. I say there is truth both in logic and in unlogic. Here we go in circles right now. (I just made up "unlogic" for "apparently (or real) illogical statements or arguments" which was too long to type three times. find&replace)
Post by: Leafsnail on December 21, 2010, 06:42:39 pm
Does it make logical sense (If you did, you did it wrong)? Then why do so many people attribute wisdom to it? They're all wrong and you're right?I'm not sure how this appeal to popularity is relevant to the fact that some questions just don't have or deserve answers. Heck, you're not even appealing to the right idea.
Summary: I'm not sure what I'm even "defending". I haz a God. You (a general you, I'm speaking to more people here) bring logic. I say your logic is incomplete. You say that I do not understand. I say that you don't want to understand, that there is also truth in unlogic (not in ALL unlogic, strawmans). You say truth is only in logic. I say there is truth both in logic and in unlogic. Here we go in circles right now. (I just made up "unlogic" for "apparently (or real) illogical statements or arguments" which was too long to type three times. find&replace)So, this "unlogic" conveniently only applies when you want it to. Great.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 21, 2010, 06:52:41 pm
I call relogic.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 21, 2010, 06:57:41 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 21, 2010, 07:00:08 pm
So what exactly are you arguing Siquo? Because so far it sounds like "I'm right because I'm right and logic doesn't apply to me".
Exactly! It just seems presumptuous. This entire thread (Essentially.) has been an argument of semantics.
Post by: Sowelu on December 21, 2010, 07:01:12 pm
...It's also a good reason to not post anything at all, and to keep it to yourself.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 21, 2010, 09:24:07 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well, this thread goes too fast for me to keep up with all the arguments. As this is your most recent though, I think I can solve some of these things with logic, and where pure logic doesn't apply then I'll use science.
"what is the sound of one hand clapping" is a meant to be a meaningless question. Because it's a "what is" question though, we can solve it with science. Scientifically, a one-hand clapping against air is nearly silent (very low frequency and volume). A single hand clapping against itself makes a muffled tap sound. Perfectly answerable.
As a koan, this is famous but not very good. It is extremely answerable, and has little "deeper" meaning, which ultimately comes from either overanalysis or acceptence of the effortless answer of silence. If you look at any statement with the same reasoning you can reveal profound truths that were never present to begin with. Make it a question, and it seems even more profound.
For example: "Every peripheral connects to the system unit through one of many types of ports". Guess what types of classes I'm taking :). Anyways, what is the meaning of this statement? Perhaps it means that we are all system units, and everything that connects to us goes through something... perhaps another person, or the waves of the water. Perhaps these things are the messages sent from beyond our understanding, connecting us to the unanswerable "extras", the peripherals. If you gave me a few days, I'd give you a profound basis to a new religion.
However, you could also say that all it means is that the little dongles that attach to your computer have specialized connectors. You know, a USB has a USB port, a DVI monitor has a DVI port, and so forth.
edit: Wisdom is not determined by the masses by the way. If you disagree, then to explain it much further would require a (lengthy) definition of what wisdom is. If you agree, then we can drop it.
-----
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Just to clarify something, that law was a good approximation but not a perfect one. On the quantum level, energy is created and destroyed spontaneously all the time. The best scientific theory I know right now is that the big bang was created by a spontaneous burst of energy on a quantum level, which shortly thereafter was destroyed in a very strange manner.
If we were to measure up all of the energy in all of the planets and stars and everything else visible, then that is a lot of energy, true. Gravity, however, reduces the energy in a system, so we count up all of that as well. Both of these counted together actually equal 0, meaning there is 0 energy in the universe. There are still quibbles (like why is the universe accelerating or what unseen matter accounts for a lot of the invisible gravity, but those also balance each other out).
Edit 2: check this out: http://xkcd.com/836/
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 05:23:35 am
So what exactly are you arguing Siquo? Because so far it sounds like "I'm right because I'm right and logic doesn't apply to me".I never said I was right. And if I did, I'm now saying that I'm not (but that doesn't make me wrong, either). Sowelu got it, but still I'm learning from this experience, and that is my goal of sharing my beliefs.
"what is the sound of one hand clapping" is a meant to be a meaningless question.Nope, and the answer is not silence, either. You may choose to interpret the question any way you want, but the form and context of the koan supposes that the practical answer is probably not the right one.
The practice of making ordinary statements sound profound has been overused and misused for a long time, I agree, but that does not mean that all such statements are without merit.
Quote
edit: Wisdom is not determined by the masses by the way. If you disagree, then to explain it much further would require a (lengthy) definition of what wisdom is. If you agree, then we can drop it.No, it isn't, BUT when a lot of people say A and you think it's B, it'd be folly not to even consider A. Thinking that you are smarter than a million other people can be fine if you are, but statistics are against you.
Quote
Gravity, however, reduces the energy in a systemHuhwhat? Gravity is negative energy? That's news, where'd you get that?
Exactly! It just seems presumptuous. This entire thread (Essentially.) has been an argument of semantics.Mostly, yes. Getting your Semantics right is important, or you can't have an argument at all.
Also, I totally agree with the xkcd comic. A source of solace vs tools. I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to Logic and Science, but I won't find solace in a hammer, or a proof. It's knowledge vs wisdom: two things that can easily coexist if they stay out of each others territory. Now, if I promise to keep my belief out of science, will you keep your science out of my belief?
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 09:46:00 am
but the only example you've given fits into this. Can you perhaps give an example of something logic can't apply to, has a meaningful answer, and isn't overanalyzed gobbledygook?"what is the sound of one hand clapping" is a meant to be a meaningless question.Nope, and the answer is not silence, either. You may choose to interpret the question any way you want, but the form and context of the koan supposes that the practical answer is probably not the right one.
The practice of making ordinary statements sound profound has been overused and misused for a long time, I agree, but that does not mean that all such statements are without merit.
Quote
We are considering it, just finding it to be silly. We're not above thinking that a god could exist, only that it doesn't seem like a worthwhile way to guide a life (and if anything is living a lie or maybe even damaging)Quoteedit: Wisdom is not determined by the masses by the way. If you disagree, then to explain it much further would require a (lengthy) definition of what wisdom is. If you agree, then we can drop it.No, it isn't, BUT when a lot of people say A and you think it's B, it'd be folly not to even consider A. Thinking that you are smarter than a million other people can be fine if you are, but statistics are against you.
Quote
Stephan Hawking (and other astrophysicists, but hawking is the biggest name I could find in 1 minute of effort).QuoteGravity, however, reduces the energy in a systemHuhwhat? Gravity is negative energy? That's news, where'd you get that?
"The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. "
Found again here: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html
Quote
I agree that symantics are important :)Exactly! It just seems presumptuous. This entire thread (Essentially.) has been an argument of semantics.Mostly, yes. Getting your Semantics right is important, or you can't have an argument at all.
Also, I totally agree with the xkcd comic. A source of solace vs tools. I'm pretty utilitarian when it comes to Logic and Science, but I won't find solace in a hammer, or a proof. It's knowledge vs wisdom: two things that can easily coexist if they stay out of each others territory. Now, if I promise to keep my belief out of science, will you keep your science out of my belief?
I disagree that wisdom is connected to solace though. This might be a difference in our definitions of wisdom. I'd follow the version on wikipedia, which has nothing to do with comfort.
By the way, we've tried keeping science and
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 10:26:01 am
but the only example you've given fits into this. Can you perhaps give an example of something logic can't apply to, has a meaningful answer, and isn't overanalyzed gobbledygook?The nature of God. Lots of meaningful answers there. (And I'm both too lazy to come up with a new one, or to throw Godel at you)
The hell, here it goes: give me a consistent formal effectively generated theory including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, that includes a statement of its own consistency while remaining consistent. ;)
Quote
We are considering itI'm glad we agree (yes, I'm totally ignoring your tangent from the original question there)
Quote
Found again here: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.htmlCool, thanks! That's... logical. I guess. Except that it's probably... Unfalsifiable. Like God. ;) Also, where do the photons go in that equation? They're energy without gravity.
Quote
I disagree that wisdom is connected to solace though. This might be a difference in our definitions of wisdom. I'd follow the version on wikipedia, which has nothing to do with comfort.You mean the version above the "Contents" block? Because that's ones very wide and incorporates both our definitions, I think. There's a plethora of definitions and theories on that page. Let me put it this way: King Solomon was wise, Stephen Hawking isn't (or at least, not much above average).
Quote
The problem is when faith interferes with science, which happens ALL the time.Yeah, not to mention terrorists. You can't blame the interference of a few on the many. It does NOT happen all the time. There's a lot of people out there who can actually tell the difference, they're just the ones who also know how to shut up properly.
Also, why would atheists lower themselves to the level of those they oppose? "Leading by example" hasn't been working out so now everyone who believes in anything whould be mocked?
Post by: Shades on December 22, 2010, 10:39:56 am
QuoteFound again here: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.htmlCool, thanks! That's... logical. I guess. Except that it's probably... Unfalsifiable. Like God. ;) Also, where do the photons go in that equation? They're energy without gravity.
Surely all you need to do is show that energy has increased when two bodies are brought closer together or that there isn't a balance of negative gravity energy to positive matter energy. Sounds falsifiable to me.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 22, 2010, 10:48:58 am
No, it isn't, BUT when a lot of people say A and you think it's B, it'd be folly not to even consider A. Thinking that you are smarter than a million other people can be fine if you are, but statistics are against you.
No, I just get annoyed by different things lately. The last elections are one of them. I'm now seeing vocal dumb masses everywhere. Sorry for bringing that up :-\As far as I can tell, you make appeals to popularity only when people agree with you. In the same way you allow circular logic to pass only when it's your argument. In the same way that logic can apparently be turned on and off at your convenience.
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 10:54:17 am
As far as I can tell, you make appeals to popularity only when people agree with you. In the same way you allow circular logic to pass only when it's your argument. In the same way that logic can apparently be turned on and off at your convenience.Then you can't tell much, you're grasping for straws. Where do I state that I have not considered their viewpoints? I probably read their program more thoroughly than most of their voters did. I speak to them about their concerns, I read about their problems and fears, and have come to my own conclusion. Dismissing stuff beforehand, especially if a lot of people find merit in it, now that is folly.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 01:12:42 pm
Nature of god is like asking to explain the wonder of a statue. "nature" as an adjective or adverb is a gobbldegook word, and means effectively "fill in the blank with whatever concept you care about", thus it has no correct answer. The answer would have to be overanalyzed, and yes, gobbldegook.but the only example you've given fits into this. Can you perhaps give an example of something logic can't apply to, has a meaningful answer, and isn't overanalyzed gobbledygook?The nature of God. Lots of meaningful answers there. (And I'm both too lazy to come up with a new one, or to throw Godel at you)
The hell, here it goes: give me a consistent formal effectively generated theory including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, that includes a statement of its own consistency while remaining consistent. ;)
Godel... (insert wikipedia research). A theoretical mathamatician? seriously? Well my largest barriers as of right now are (a)I have no idea what a "formal effectively generated theory" is, (b) I have no idea what "truths about formal provability" are, (c) you're specifically asking for "a statment of it's own consistency while remaining consistent" otherwise known as circular logic. If I did understand those, I might give you something.
From what I read on wikipedia though, those requests are doable (even if its' circular logic). The problem comes when you want them to be complete as well.
Quote
Ignoring the point of the sentence, so you can take something out of context and misrepresent my opinion? Haha... alright then.QuoteWe are considering itI'm glad we agree (yes, I'm totally ignoring your tangent from the original question there)
Quote
See, I would consider Stephen Hawking as wise, and King Soloman as a fool. He may have been wise for his time and culture, but that's not saying much. Honestly, he famously solved the problem of who was the mother of a baby. what woman doesn't know the child they gave birth to? were they not paying attention? Then he used psychology to see who would be willing to kill the baby. If the women were smart they would both say "that's heartless", and the trick wouldn't have worked. I wisdom constently produces optimum results or the desired outcome, then you and I are wiser than that I would hope.QuoteFound again here: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.htmlCool, thanks! That's... logical. I guess. Except that it's probably... Unfalsifiable. Like God. ;) Also, where do the photons go in that equation? They're energy without gravity.QuoteI disagree that wisdom is connected to solace though. This might be a difference in our definitions of wisdom. I'd follow the version on wikipedia, which has nothing to do with comfort.You mean the version above the "Contents" block? Because that's ones very wide and incorporates both our definitions, I think. There's a plethora of definitions and theories on that page. Let me put it this way: King Solomon was wise, Stephen Hawking isn't (or at least, not much above average).
Quote
This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).QuoteThe problem is when faith interferes with science, which happens ALL the time.Yeah, not to mention terrorists. You can't blame the interference of a few on the many. It does NOT happen all the time. There's a lot of people out there who can actually tell the difference, they're just the ones who also know how to shut up properly.
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 02:46:04 pm
This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.
But even then, answer me, since you brought in the subject: At what age should babies still be killed?
(Yeah, I know my choice of words was mean ;) Replace with foetus or embryo, although since the only difference between foetus and baby is an event called "birth", that line is arbitrary)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 03:06:02 pm
Post by: Supercharazad on December 22, 2010, 03:10:18 pm
Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!Yeah, we already covered that with the 3rd generation of stars in defending the Big Bang theory, a page or 20 ago. Fun fact: hydrogen is energy, too :P
But more serious: If not comprehensible, what aspects does this "primal mover" of yours have? Does it have intelligence? Is it conscious? Was there a purpose in the creation of the Big Bang? And how do you know?
Let's see...
None I know of
I don't know, maybe, maybe not
As above
As above
I do not.
Also, I make a point of not praying to any god, but I won't spit on their statues either.
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 22, 2010, 03:11:46 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2010, 03:19:43 pm
I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.In the most simplistic terms, yes, the Mother-Fetus relationship is parasitic, but it's also how we reproduce so it doesn't count.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 03:26:19 pm
My question for atheists is: Is there anyother reason to not be religious other than the obvious?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2010, 03:30:32 pm
My question for atheists is: Is there any other reason to not be religious other than the obvious?What's "the obvious"? The lack of any evidence for religious faith? The highly negitive impact and regression religion has inflicted upon society? The excluding nature of some religions that turns those in it against others? The physical and mental abuse that has the disturbing tendincy to happen in organized religion on a regular basis?
I don't know what you mean by "the obvious".
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 03:33:01 pm
Should have worded that better.
Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 03:46:35 pm
I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.Oh no, it's after birth that the parasitism begins. Do you have any idea what those things cost? And not just money. Time, energy, sleep, eardrums, your brand new couch. Damn.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2010, 03:46:52 pm
Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Other than the fact that you don't believe in G-d.Just nitpicking, but that isn't a reason to be an atheist, that's atheism verbatim.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 04:11:51 pm
Look, if you're going to continue ignoring my point and just taking a small part of a reply to attack it from a different tangent, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing.I thought I've been pretty good about fighting against every argument that you say. I also thought every tangent had the direct purpose of refuting to the best of my ability. Can someone else confirm that I'm ignoring something he said?
Quote
At least we agree to disagree on several definitions, which makes any further discussion of the subjects useless. So, on with the rest:There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.
But even then, answer me, since you brought in the subject: At what age should babies still be killed?
(Yeah, I know my choice of words was mean ;) Replace with foetus or embryo, although since the only difference between foetus and baby is an event called "birth", that line is arbitrary)
As for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.
Edit:
Haha... But they are SO worth it. If not for the whole "continuing the species" thing, then at least for entertainment value.I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.Oh no, it's after birth that the parasitism begins. Do you have any idea what those things cost? And not just money. Time, energy, sleep, eardrums, your brand new couch. Damn.
Post by: Siquo on December 22, 2010, 04:45:27 pm
There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)
Quote
As for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?
I'm feeling militant :D
Post by: Sowelu on December 22, 2010, 05:20:46 pm
Third-trimester abortions are tricky. With modern medicine, you can give birth at seven months and have the kid survive just fine. I think that's where I truly draw the line, in the end--if you CAN take the kid out and have it survive, then it's already a person, and keeping it inside you is just a way of cutting out some very costly medical bills (as well as being good for the child anyway). If you can't, then it's not a person yet.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 22, 2010, 05:40:38 pm
Dammit, I have to link this (http://religioustolerance.org) AGAIN.Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 22, 2010, 05:42:25 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 22, 2010, 05:47:18 pm
I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it....which I don't dissagree with you on. My view on religion is that it is akin to a pool of stagnant water. There's nothing good or bad about it on it's own, but soon enough the mosquitoes will come to breed and give everyone malaria. Religion becomes a tool to harm others by those who abuse the power it gives, and that's one of the reasons I'm an atheist, which is what the original question was.
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 22, 2010, 05:50:51 pm
It's true either way, no matter what people believe in they are going to be pricks and twist it so they can strike out against people they dislike. There will also always be people who get themselves in the best position to manipulate people into doing what they want. People suck, they use religion as an excuse to justify hate. But some, mind you only some not even close to a tenth, hate wouldn't exist without religion. Why hate musliems if not for the fact they are heathens? Why hate jews if not for the fact they killed christ? etc. etc.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 22, 2010, 05:52:22 pm
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
Hopy shit, realmfighter said something smart. We're through the looking glass now.
Now with additional disbelief!
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 22, 2010, 05:54:37 pm
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but the way you phrased it seemed very hostile.I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it....which I don't dissagree with you on. My view on religion is that it is akin to a pool of stagnant water. There's nothing good or bad about it on it's own, but soon enough the mosquitoes will come to breed and give everyone malaria. Religion becomes a tool to harm others by those who abuse the power it gives, and that's one of the reasons I'm an atheist, which is what the original question was.
As people said, 'Realmfighter posted something useful for once!', or something along those lines.It's not the specific religions, it's discrimination in general. To quote from *gasp* Realmfighter:
It's true either way, no matter what people believe in they are going to be pricks and twist it so they can strike out against people they dislike. There will also always be people who get themselves in the best position to manipulate people into doing what they want. People suck, they use religion as an excuse to justify hate. But some, mind you only some not even close to a tenth, hate wouldn't exist without religion. Why hate musliems if not for the fact they are heathens? Why hate jews if not for the fact they killed christ? etc. etc.
The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.
It happened because they were different.
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 22, 2010, 05:58:39 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 22, 2010, 06:00:15 pm
Or are they foreigner?
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 22, 2010, 06:04:09 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 06:06:15 pm
Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)
Quote
Thanks? I'm a little fuzzy on the times that specific things happen and their relevance, so I used the conservative estimates. With better data I could change my mind. I have a feeling that the people who set that limit know more than I do. Also, The legal limit you present is for abortions, correct? Pro-life (anti-abortion with a prettier name) activists would protest that. Stem cell research (how this started, remember?) uses them at far less than that (I read somewhere around 2 wks). Legally, by the way, it is not considered a baby with rights until it is born, so both of those are conservative in a way.QuoteAs for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?
I'm feeling militant :D
Killing people 20 years after birth is actually a good point to bring up. Unfortunately that line travels us down a long path of when killing others is ethical. We could go into the death penalty, euthanasia, the brain-damaged, suicide, and all sorts of things. However, I think it's fair to say that ethically we generally consider killing the young to be (a lot) worse.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 22, 2010, 06:09:32 pm
Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.
But Cristians truly do believe that you will suffer eternal suffering if you don't repent, making them trying to convert you okay by both your definitions.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 06:13:31 pm
It's a very good point even if it's repeated. Religion isn't the prime motivation for most of the bad things in the world. Religion acts as a unifier and justifier for those things though. The Crusades, from what I hear, would have otherwise been the same inter-cultural wars that plagued europe before them. Christians were killing each other so often that the pope said "just go take back the holy land, fight them instead of fighting among yoruselves!". If religion wasn't there to direct them all, then they would have mostly killed themselves.Dammit, I have to link this (http://religioustolerance.org) AGAIN.Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
A more modern example can be with Hitler. Hitler did not rise to power because of theology, but he definitely used it as propaganda to motivate his troops. He definitely used it to show the superiority of the Aryan "race" and the inferiority of others.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 06:50:08 pm
Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.
But Cristians truly do believe that you will suffer eternal suffering if you don't repent, making them trying to convert you okay by both your definitions.
How is that ok by my definitions?
Whether they think it's moral or not is irrelevant to what I said anyways, since I was talking about universal values of correcting someone about facts rather than on belief. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Also, check out the context of what I was saying (edited for coherency, total content saved and referenced)
Check it out:
This is a case of either misunderstanding, or purposefully misrepresenting. Just to defend myself again, My beliefs are not inherently and immutably better than yours. If you have an idea of which I have not considered, let me consider it. This is the exact opposite of faith by the way (by definition). That is not a statement of belief, but a statement of definition.So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 22, 2010, 07:00:54 pm
Evolution shows that the human brain is based around much more primitive ways of thinking, and that logic and reasoning have been slapped on top of this construct. I think it's quite possible for humans to slowly degenerate the primitive ways of thinking, albeit it would take a while.
Also, what's with everyone feeling that their beliefs are threatened in this thread?
Post by: Glowcat on December 22, 2010, 07:05:23 pm
I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.
That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.
Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.
Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 22, 2010, 07:06:28 pm
The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?But if you start making crap slippery slope arguments, soon all of your arguments will be equally fallacious!
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 22, 2010, 07:34:30 pm
Saying that X religion causes the bogeyman thing is like saying that racism causes you to not like Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc. It is unique simply because it exists. Same goes for an eternal reward, and the fanaticism.I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.
That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.
Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.
Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.
As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.
Post by: Sowelu on December 22, 2010, 07:45:03 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 22, 2010, 07:51:39 pm
Well, the natural followup to Glowcat's argument is that people who teach their kids crazy conspiracy theories are exactly as harmful to their children as people who teach their kids religion.And I don't have many qualms with that, because I'm against indoctrinated religion. Except that you could argue that conspiracy theories are more harmful than religion.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 07:55:08 pm
Dammit, I have to link this (http://religioustolerance.org) AGAIN.Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Thank you crownoffire for giving me a good page to explain my beliefs on abortion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
Post by: Glowcat on December 22, 2010, 08:07:59 pm
As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.
It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.
It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.
And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 08:13:39 pm
You said that you had never seen damage caused by religion which non-religion couldn't do as well. I showed an instance where you were wrong. To believe in the supernatural is decidedly religious and the root of a major disagreement I have with religion, the other issue being traditionalism and dogma. Really, when I speak about religion I am referring to both of those aspects.As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.
It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.
It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.
And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.
Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.
Post by: Glowcat on December 22, 2010, 08:16:43 pm
Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole.
I never even mentioned a particular religious belief group...
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 08:17:42 pm
Which is worse.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 22, 2010, 08:22:50 pm
Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.
Your Bible also condones many other morally controversial acts. As do the Koran and the Tanakh. You could say that I'm being offensive when I would really be just making observations about your own teachings.
Post by: Glowcat on December 22, 2010, 08:23:15 pm
Than you are applying stereotypes to religion as a whole.
I was talking about specific ideas that arise out of religions or are dogma in them...
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 22, 2010, 08:24:21 pm
Than you are applying stereotypes to religion as a whole.
I was talking about specific ideas that arise out of religions or are dogma in them...
Hmmmm.... Okay. I guess I flew off the handle there.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 22, 2010, 08:24:27 pm
You said that you had never seen damage caused by religion which non-religion couldn't do as well. I showed an instance where you were wrong. To believe in the supernatural is decidedly religious and the root of a major disagreement I have with religion, the other issue being traditionalism and dogma. Really, when I speak about religion I am referring to both of those aspects.There are things that are ultimately specific to religion, but like I said, there are other things are specific to other beliefs (for example, racism).
Okay, I think I know what you're getting at now. The only reason that faith is largest in religion is because it's practically the only thing that contains it. But the people that are against homosexuality and such only believe in that stuff because of indoctrinated religion (which I'm against), not religion itself. Without indoctrinated religion, most probably wouldn't hate those things. Even without religion at all, the rest of them would probably still find a reason to hate those things.As strange as it may seem, you don't need religion to have faith. Look at conspiracy theorists. They have no reason to think their conspiracy is right except their own faith in it (and their craziness, but that's beside the point). If we're defining faith as having belief in something with no real reason, then you can toss in all sorts of things in there.
It isn't strange at all and as I already said, it exists for many things apart from religion. However it is within religion and other supernatural views that the strongest opposition to objective truth comes from. In religion Faith is idolized to the point where people think they don't need an answer to questions posed towards their beliefs and that simply calling it their belief is an acceptable reason to stomp on the freedom of homosexuals, prevent stemcell research which could help millions, oppose the spread of condoms in Africa, and stone women to death for adultery.
It is the particular religious ideas that become dangerous when the principle of Faith is applied.
And Conspiracy Theories are a bit different than Faith, since that creeps into the territory of being insane and unable to properly evaluate evidence because of emotional reasons. Even the worst conspiracy theorists I've seen haven't denied discussion about a topic simply because it's their way of seeing things, rather they are more interested in convincing others to their point of view, and will engage in debate about the truth. Theirs is a more common stubborn nature than the elevated fall-back position that supernaturalists/pseudo-science advocates hide behind whenever Objective Truth is trumping their claims.I can give you that conspiracy theorists are crazy, but they are only an example. Faith is really something specific to religion, if we're defining it that way. Conspiracy theorists find "proof", religious people find faith. There's the occasional person that claims to have proof of whatever religion, but it's ultimately unprovable to anyone other than that one person.
By the way, as a message to everyone, nobody likes it when you generalize religion. Especially when you consider Christianity to be the head of it all.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 22, 2010, 10:52:25 pm
This all makes sense to me, but I'm not sure the data supports it. I refer to: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/scott-atran , specifically at time marker 7:15 or something. "Religious education is inversely proportional, it's a negative predictor, of being involved with violence and Jihad. It is a negative predictor of being radicalized in prison." There is a little more as well of course.I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.
That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.
Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.
How would you explain this data?
Quote
Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.I seperated out this part just because i like the part I bolded. I wouldn't say it's the greatest of sins, but it's definately very... insidious.
Post by: Sowelu on December 22, 2010, 10:59:18 pm
Post by: Glowcat on December 23, 2010, 01:46:15 am
This all makes sense to me, but I'm not sure the data supports it. I refer to: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/scott-atran , specifically at time marker 7:15 or something. "Religious education is inversely proportional, it's a negative predictor, of being involved with violence and Jihad. It is a negative predictor of being radicalized in prison." There is a little more as well of course.I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.
Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.
That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.
Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.
How would you explain this data?
I'm not sure what you're objecting to or why religious Madrasahs in Pakistan and their correlation with radical militancy are relevant. What I put forth was a brief list of religious inspired ideas that have managed to cause great harm and had no equal secular outlet (although nationalism is comparable to the 2nd). Where these religious ideas are learned doesn't matter so much as the fervency with which they are followed and believed.
I did look a bit into what Scott Atran was saying however, and I believe this was the paper he referenced: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=130&Itemid=54 (http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php?option=com_rokzine&view=article&id=130&Itemid=54)
Note that while religious Madrasah students aren't given to violent militarism themselves their polling numbers show them in support of destructive goals with 53 percent of students who said that Pakistan should support Jihad groups to reclaim Kashmir compared to 33 percent of public school students and 23 percent of private school students. The danger posed by these institutions is not the creation of a populist Jihad but rather the entrenchment of a religious-right much like the one present in the United States. People so influenced by religion become a political force and imo have the ability to cause more harm in the long run than a bunch of angry insurgents.
Being unnaturally stubborn about something isn't terribly destructive on its own -- well, unless one values intellectual honesty and progress -- but when combined with a dangerous idea it becomes an explosive cocktail. The problem with combating Faith views on their own terms is that none of them are able to prove themselves more valid than the others due to an inherent failure of Faith-based epistemology. The appeal to faith used to defend many benign religious arguments, the ones where selective total agnosticism seems to justify anything the believer wants, can be used equally well by people who follow not-so benign understandings.
If this faith block is removed, the dangerous dogma people feel compelled to follow will no longer have a supernaturally backed auto-win card to play. The goal is to get people to think like secular Humanists by not looking to the past for their policies/morals, but rather look to the future with an objective adapting outlook. Religion must essentially be replaced by Philosophy. We must understand what we believe, why we believe it, and why it should or shouldn't influence the direction of our societies.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 23, 2010, 07:52:39 am
Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.
Leviticus 20 - 13
Post by: malimbar04 on December 23, 2010, 08:30:01 am
<snip>thanks
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2010, 12:18:39 pm
Ah, but that's formal education. Learning it from your family, growing up in the church, is NOT "religious education", that's "religious indoctrination".Yeah, for us, RE was more about religious tolerance and understanding than anything else.
Post by: Nikov on December 23, 2010, 12:24:37 pm
Stomp on homosexual rights? Since when? I as a Christian am offended by that. You're just applying offensive stereotypes to Christians as a whole. Please. Don't do that. And I just want to say, both men and women were stoned. It was necessary for G-d to apply justice to the Jews. But please. Stop being so offensive.
Leviticus 20 - 13
I love when Jewish laws that were superceded following the death of Christ are used to paint Christians as evil.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 23, 2010, 12:30:34 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 23, 2010, 12:30:44 pm
Also, as a side note, why do people put 'G-d' to avoid putting 'god'? I know you're not supposed to his his name in vain, but the word 'God' was made up so you could talk about him without saying his name! Yahweh, I think that's how it would be spelled, is his name.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 23, 2010, 12:33:00 pm
Huh.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 23, 2010, 12:35:04 pm
I love when Jewish laws that were superceded following the death of Christ are used to paint Christians as evil.I'd like to know where you get the idea that the old Jewish laws were no longer considered to be in effect after Christ's death, given that Jesus says: "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fufill it."-Matthew 5:17
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 23, 2010, 12:35:28 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2010, 12:39:40 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 01:34:44 pm
It's still consitered part of the christian bible, so technicly speaking it does count. Plus, last I bothered to check, most christian wackjobs who scream about homosexuals being evil point to said passage as proof.
Also, as a side note, why do people put 'G-d' to avoid putting 'god'? I know you're not supposed to his his name in vain, but the word 'God' was made up so you could talk about him without saying his name! Yahweh, I think that's how it would be spelled, is his name.
I consider the name of G-d to be too holy to write down. And I will not say YHWH. It's a Jewish thing.
Wait, "Taking the lords name in vain" counts for things other then Oh My God?
Huh.
Taking the L-rd's name in vain means like swearing an oath on his name.
Post by: Bauglir on December 23, 2010, 01:48:52 pm
I would also be lying if I didn't say that the teachings of J-sus didn't require people to not stone them.
I would also be lying if I said that the teachings of J-sus required people to not stone them.
Just clearing up some of that atrocious overuse of negatives. Did you mean to say what you said? Because if so, there MAY be an argument pending.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 02:02:53 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 23, 2010, 02:11:05 pm
The same place they came up with the idea that Jesus is god, even though he explicitly says several times that he is not. not all christians believe either of these thigns by the way. The mormons, for example, believe that the trinity is 3 seperate entities. They also solve the problem of old vs new by saying (a) the old scripture wasn't written for our time and (b) it was mishandled when it was compiled and translated. The original prophet even said that the Song of Solomon wasn't inspired by god, and technically shouldn't even be in there. They keep it only because they don't have a "perfect" scripture.I love when Jewish laws that were superceded following the death of Christ are used to paint Christians as evil.I'd like to know where you get the idea that the old Jewish laws were no longer considered to be in effect after Christ's death, given that Jesus says: "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fufill it."-Matthew 5:17
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 23, 2010, 04:03:01 pm
Also, thank you for clearing that up for my Urist.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 04:30:34 pm
Ironicly both the jewish holy books and the christian ones have had things that where 'inappropriate' removed completely, like they never existed. Yet the newest of the trifecta faiths, Islam, has most if not all of the scriptures as intact as possible.
Also, thank you for clearing that up for my Urist.
Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?
Post by: Uristisdying on December 23, 2010, 05:13:14 pm
Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?
Code: [Select]
The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[17]
During the Protestant Reformation, certain reformers proposed different canonical lists to those currently in use. Though not without debate, see Antilegomena, the list of New Testament books would come to remain the same; however, the Old Testament texts present in the Septuagint, but not included in the Jewish canon, fell out of favor. In time they would come to be removed from most Protestant canons. Hence, in a Catholic context these texts are referred to as deuterocanonical books, whereas in a Protestant context they are referred to as Apocrypha, the label applied to all texts excluded from the biblical canon which were in the Septuagint. It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the Acts of Peter, as apocryphal.
Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The Orthodox Churches, in addition to the Catholic canon, recognise 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151. Some include 2 Esdras. The Anglican Church also recognises a longer canon. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is often used as being synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, since the surviving scriptures in Hebrew include only those books, while Catholics and Orthodox include additional texts that have not survived in Hebrew. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.
The New Testament writers assumed the inspiration of the Old Testament, probably earliest stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, "all Scripture is inspired of God."[8]This is from Wikipedia. While certainly not the best source, the paragraph above explains why because of the many different christian sects with different priorities, the bible was changed, enlarged, made smaller, and altered to fit the sect it was intended for. Modern examples are the Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses, whose version of the bible is sometimes radically different than say - a catholic bible.
It does not take much to conclude that many of the changes that were made removed things that weren' appropriate or disadvantegous (sp?) for the clergy.
If asked for, I'll provide specific examples.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 23, 2010, 05:27:29 pm
EDIT: well, you've been here since september, and have posted fairly frequently, so you're probably legit. a troll obvious enough to make such a play with the dead urist's name wouldn't put that much effort into hiding it's trollish nature... funny coincidence, eh?
Post by: Uristisdying on December 23, 2010, 05:32:39 pm
€dit in order not to make a new post for this: I'm happy you acknowledge I'm indeed not a troll. Since it is quite difficult to prove otherwise, once accused.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 23, 2010, 05:34:13 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 06:28:52 pm
whose sock puppet are you? your name certainly looks like a play on our friend "urist is dead to me"'s name
EDIT: well, you've been here since september, and have posted fairly frequently, so you're probably legit. a troll obvious enough to make such a play with the dead urist's name wouldn't put that much effort into hiding it's trollish nature... funny coincidence, eh?
Finally someone got my intended name! I misspelled it and have been reminded of this at every turn.
Do you have any examples of the "inappropriate" content being removed?Code: [Select]The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).[17]
During the Protestant Reformation, certain reformers proposed different canonical lists to those currently in use. Though not without debate, see Antilegomena, the list of New Testament books would come to remain the same; however, the Old Testament texts present in the Septuagint, but not included in the Jewish canon, fell out of favor. In time they would come to be removed from most Protestant canons. Hence, in a Catholic context these texts are referred to as deuterocanonical books, whereas in a Protestant context they are referred to as Apocrypha, the label applied to all texts excluded from the biblical canon which were in the Septuagint. It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the Acts of Peter, as apocryphal.
Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The Orthodox Churches, in addition to the Catholic canon, recognise 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151. Some include 2 Esdras. The Anglican Church also recognises a longer canon. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is often used as being synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, since the surviving scriptures in Hebrew include only those books, while Catholics and Orthodox include additional texts that have not survived in Hebrew. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.
The New Testament writers assumed the inspiration of the Old Testament, probably earliest stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, "all Scripture is inspired of God."[8]
This is from Wikipedia. While certainly not the best source, the paragraph above explains why because of the many different christian sects with different priorities, the bible was changed, enlarged, made smaller, and altered to fit the sect it was intended for. Modern examples are the Mormons or Jehovas Witnesses, whose version of the bible is sometimes radically different than say - a catholic bible.
It does not take much to conclude that many of the changes that were made removed things that weren' appropriate or disadvantegous (sp?) for the clergy.
If asked for, I'll provide specific examples.
There's no denying how far the Mormons and Jehovas witnesses have strayed from the original intent. Even Evangelical Christians would be called hypocrites these days. Most forms have strayed quite far in one way or another.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 23, 2010, 06:35:08 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 06:37:18 pm
If anybody sticks to the letter of the Bible, then it's Jehova's witnesses. Besides, what does even "the original intent" mean?
Not really. They aren't exactly private with their religion.
Edit: Not only that but they completely reject the Holy Trinity. Not very Christian.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 23, 2010, 06:52:42 pm
Not really. They aren't exactly private with their religion.What do you mean? Does the Bible not tell you to go and spread the word of God?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 07:04:22 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2010, 07:07:04 pm
I mean, a religion that tells you to keep it to yourself would never last very long.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 07:07:58 pm
Yeah, the whole apostles thing quite clearly tells you to spread the word.
I mean, a religion that tells you to keep it to yourself would never last very long.
J-sus told them to "Find the lost sheep of Israel."
Post by: Leafsnail on December 23, 2010, 07:10:06 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 23, 2010, 07:11:34 pm
And yes. Spread the word :P.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 23, 2010, 07:20:09 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 24, 2010, 11:26:00 am
The "holy trinitity" is nowhere in the holy books. This was completely made up by later christians.If anybody sticks to the letter of the Bible, then it's Jehova's witnesses. Besides, what does even "the original intent" mean?
Not really. They aren't exactly private with their religion.
Edit: Not only that but they completely reject the Holy Trinity. Not very Christian.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 11:28:40 am
G-d, J-sus, and the Holy Ghost are all mentioned in Mathew.
I believe that you don't know what you are talking about.
That's the kindest way to put it.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2010, 11:41:26 am
The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 24, 2010, 12:01:51 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 01:24:34 pm
The idea of a trinity is mentioned nowhere, however. That's organized later by the church. Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are all in there, but they aren't talked of like they're all the same being-except-not-really-its-rather-ambiguous-either-way.The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Christianity was pretty much Judaism but with a Trinity.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 24, 2010, 01:42:35 pm
reread what you quoted, and figure what you added. Does it add anything, discredit anything, or further the conversation in any way? By the way, technically all you have to believe in order to be a christian is.. that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Then you need to profess to follow his teachings. It's generally accepted that he was holy, but even that's not a requirement, let alone believing that he was also god and a ghost (both of which he never said and often contradicted).The idea of a trinity is mentioned nowhere, however. That's organized later by the church. Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are all in there, but they aren't talked of like they're all the same being-except-not-really-its-rather-ambiguous-either-way.The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Christianity was pretty much Judaism but with a Trinity.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 24, 2010, 03:04:11 pm
I don't think that anybody denies that Jesus existed as a PERSON (for the most part anyway, never assume...). Whether or not he was or was not a prophet or son of God or what have you is what is debated.reread what you quoted, and figure what you added. Does it add anything, discredit anything, or further the conversation in any way? By the way, technically all you have to believe in order to be a christian is.. that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Then you need to profess to follow his teachings. It's generally accepted that he was holy, but even that's not a requirement, let alone believing that he was also god and a ghost (both of which he never said and often contradicted).The idea of a trinity is mentioned nowhere, however. That's organized later by the church. Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are all in there, but they aren't talked of like they're all the same being-except-not-really-its-rather-ambiguous-either-way.The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Christianity was pretty much Judaism but with a Trinity.
And yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are really close. I think we established this already, but whatever. Two people that matter to them, Muhammad (or however you spell his name), and Jesus. To Jews and Muslims, Jesus was a prophet (or something approximately equivalent. To Christians and Jews, Muhammad... I'm not sure, but they don't follow his teachings (or at least don't follow them as much or something).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 24, 2010, 03:14:36 pm
I don't think that anybody denies that Jesus existed as a PERSON (for the most part anyway, never assume...).I'm not convinced. I have yet to see a non-Biblical source that shows Jesus's existance, and while I've heard they exist no one has ever actually shown me them. Plus, Jesus's story and acts are simmilar to earliar myths. The fraction of the story which seems to be utterly fictional leads me to believe that he very well may have not existed at all. However, this is all just nit-picking, as it doesn't really matter to me if he was a real person or not.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 24, 2010, 03:42:53 pm
I'd guess many of jesus teachings were actually someone else's teachings till somebody decided jesus was coller
Post by: malimbar04 on December 24, 2010, 04:40:25 pm
I think there was a roman legal document or something. anyway, i don't doubt he existed, i just doubt he ever professed anything, or everything, that is attributed to to him, neither he nor his apostles ever wrote anything, and any account of his words and actions were written generations after he died. besides jesus wasn't exceptional, he was a disciple of john the baptist, who was just one of the many prophets of his time, and jesus thought it might be fun to start a sect of his own, then his apostles each did the same, and by the fourth century there were so many christian sects that the roman emperor himself though that it might be fun to make a state sponsored one, and compiled a book with his favourite texts.That would be an interesting document to see. I've never heard of a source outside of the standard gospels (and the gospels that weren't included into the bible too). I don't think he tried to start his own sect by the way. That was done for him by his followers. It was... I think Paul that is credited with that? I don't remember, but I'm sure one of you intelligent people knows.
I'd guess many of jesus teachings were actually someone else's teachings till somebody decided jesus was coller
Anyways, I have heard there isn't as much evidence for him as there are for most prominent figures (Like there are for Herod or the emperor of Rome), but I still think there is little reason to doubt. His apostles wrote quite a few texts about him relatively shortly after he died (ok, several years if not decades, even if they don't all agree or make much sense). If a dozen or so people claim to have followed some obscure messiah though (among several in that time and place), then I think it's safe to say he at least existed.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 24, 2010, 05:06:31 pm
His apostles wrote quite a few texts about him relatively shortly after he died (ok, several years if not decades, even if they don't all agree or make much sense).
there's no reason to believe that any of the gospels were actually written by any of them.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 07:29:09 pm
reread what you quoted, and figure what you added. Does it add anything, discredit anything, or further the conversation in any way? By the way, technically all you have to believe in order to be a christian is.. that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Then you need to profess to follow his teachings. It's generally accepted that he was holy, but even that's not a requirement, let alone believing that he was also god and a ghost (both of which he never said and often contradicted).The idea of a trinity is mentioned nowhere, however. That's organized later by the church. Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are all in there, but they aren't talked of like they're all the same being-except-not-really-its-rather-ambiguous-either-way.The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Christianity was pretty much Judaism but with a Trinity.
J-sus was not G-d. J-sus was not a ghost. G-d was not a ghost. And the Holy Ghost was not G-d or J-sus.
They were equal parts. And the Holy Ghost I would say is a misleading name. The Holy Spirit is better.
I think there was a roman legal document or something. anyway, i don't doubt he existed, i just doubt he ever professed anything, or everything, that is attributed to to him, neither he nor his apostles ever wrote anything, and any account of his words and actions were written generations after he died. besides jesus wasn't exceptional, he was a disciple of john the baptist, who was just one of the many prophets of his time, and jesus thought it might be fun to start a sect of his own, then his apostles each did the same, and by the fourth century there were so many christian sects that the roman emperor himself though that it might be fun to make a state sponsored one, and compiled a book with his favourite texts.
I'd guess many of jesus teachings were actually someone else's teachings till somebody decided jesus was coller
J-sus was a Rabbi. In short. Simply a Rabbi. So I guess that would make him unexceptional to non Christians.
I don't think that anybody denies that Jesus existed as a PERSON (for the most part anyway, never assume...). Whether or not he was or was not a prophet or son of God or what have you is what is debated.reread what you quoted, and figure what you added. Does it add anything, discredit anything, or further the conversation in any way? By the way, technically all you have to believe in order to be a christian is.. that Jesus of Nazereth existed. Then you need to profess to follow his teachings. It's generally accepted that he was holy, but even that's not a requirement, let alone believing that he was also god and a ghost (both of which he never said and often contradicted).The idea of a trinity is mentioned nowhere, however. That's organized later by the church. Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are all in there, but they aren't talked of like they're all the same being-except-not-really-its-rather-ambiguous-either-way.The idea of Christianity is completely based on the Holy Trinity.Wouldn't Christianity be more based off of Judaism, or at least the death of Jesus, than the trinity?
Christianity was pretty much Judaism but with a Trinity.
And yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are really close. I think we established this already, but whatever. Two people that matter to them, Muhammad (or however you spell his name), and Jesus. To Jews and Muslims, Jesus was a prophet (or something approximately equivalent. To Christians and Jews, Muhammad... I'm not sure, but they don't follow his teachings (or at least don't follow them as much or something).
To most Jews J-sus was the greatest (And therefor worst), of the false prophets. To Muslims he has a role similar to the Old Testament in Christianity. Christians and Jews usually believe that Islam is a false religion.
Post by: Glowcat on December 24, 2010, 08:16:32 pm
I don't think that anybody denies that Jesus existed as a PERSON (for the most part anyway, never assume...).I'm not convinced. I have yet to see a non-Biblical source that shows Jesus's existance, and while I've heard they exist no one has ever actually shown me them. Plus, Jesus's story and acts are simmilar to earliar myths. The fraction of the story which seems to be utterly fictional leads me to believe that he very well may have not existed at all. However, this is all just nit-picking, as it doesn't really matter to me if he was a real person or not.
There are a few sources but they're written quite a while after when his death was supposed to occur. Perhaps most commonly cited are the Jewish-scholar Josephus's accounts, both the Testimonium Flavianum and the James passage. There is also a mention by the Roman historian Tacitus with regards to a fire Nero blamed on the Christians. All of them have issues however, and I do not put stock in the Josephus versions.
The Testimonium for instance has the following recorded:
Quote
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There are some huge problems with this text, namely because Josephus remained Jewish and didn't convert to Christianity despite apparently acknowledging a miracle, the fulfillment of prophecy, and in general to ridiculous falling over to praise Jesus. Similarly there is also the usage of Christ. Christ isn't a last name, it's a title for the Anointed One. The Messiah. This peculiarity is found in all 3 mentioned texts.
Most scholars think that the Testimonium is only partially interpolated and that the true text was more like this, although there is still disagreement in many directions:
Quote
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Next is the other Josephus account. Supposedly describing James the brother of Jesus.
Quote
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest
It is the bolded part which causes people to believe this text refers to the Christian Jesus. However, I'm of the mind that that small bit was an interpolation since the entire piece flows together better when Ananus's punishment was to be replaced by the brother of the man he just had stoned to death.
Finally there is the Roman historian Tacitus. He is reporting on a fire and Nero's reaction to blame the Christians for the deed.
Quote
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Besides the strange reference to Christ as a name, this is the account that most convinces me that a Christian Jesus (of some sort) did exist in reality.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 24, 2010, 08:19:12 pm
J-sus was not G-d. J-sus was not a ghost. G-d was not a ghost. And the Holy Ghost was not G-d or J-sus.Jesus, Urist, stop doing that "-" thingy. If the Pope* doesn't mind saying "God" and "Jesus" out loud, then neither should you. You come off as some over-zelous wacko.
They were equal parts. And the Holy Ghost I would say is a misleading name. The Holy Spirit is better.
Damn, how do you think the apostles would have talked to their flocks if they were to be equally cryptic and evasive?
(and there's a glaring lack of consistency - you should at least write "H-ly Gh-st")
Also, if you believe that Christianity's dogma says that each of the entities comprising the Trinity is 1/3rd of God, then you've got your beliefs wrong(heretic, I could say, if I were to spark a flaming outburst).
God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are each 100% God, yet there is no three separate gods. The difference seems subtle, but that's actually a very important distinction, if you want to believe in a concept of a trinity, and still believe in just one god.
*I'm happily assuming you being of the Catholic denomination.
ed: I'm pretty sure there's at least one horribad usage of tenses in there, but I just don't know how to fix it.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 11:36:49 pm
If I come off as an over zealous wacko then so be it.
Post by: Autarch on December 24, 2010, 11:37:54 pm
Or is that just a man protecting his organisation?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 11:40:21 pm
Does God protect people who touch children, too?
Or is that just a man protecting his organisation?
I don't know what G-d does. I would say that the Catholic church is just a loose society of perverts. A man chosen by G-d wouldn't allow pedophilia*.
*Probably not.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 24, 2010, 11:41:06 pm
Post by: Autarch on December 24, 2010, 11:42:32 pm
Have respect, man.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 24, 2010, 11:50:15 pm
@Il Palazzo: I think Urist is Jewish.
Have respect, man.
I'm not Jewish, I practice Christianity in the manner of very early Christians.
And I don't think that any man should be respected more because of his religion. Nor any man less because he doesn't have one.
Post by: Bauglir on December 25, 2010, 03:00:52 am
And I don't think that any man should be respected more because of his religion. Nor any man less because he doesn't have one.
This is a sentiment I can get behind.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 25, 2010, 08:58:20 am
Does God protect people who touch children, too?
Or is that just a man protecting his organisation?
I don't know what G-d does. I would say that the Catholic church is just a loose society of perverts. A man chosen by G-d wouldn't allow pedophilia*.
*Probably not.
god, that's such an unfair generalization if i ever saw one... much more unfair than to claim that Christianity enforces homophobia
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 25, 2010, 09:34:21 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 25, 2010, 10:10:02 am
Come on people. You can do better than this orgy of mutual respect.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 25, 2010, 10:16:17 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 25, 2010, 10:21:17 am
What is this pussyfooting here? People being sorry for...words they wrote?Oh look, he's back. Not exactly off to a great start to remain unmuted, now are you?
Come on people. You can do better than this orgy of mutual respect.
Post by: Glowcat on December 25, 2010, 10:26:07 am
Come on people. You can do better than this orgy of mutual respect.
Yeah people. We should be fighting each other to the death in a gladiatorial arena decorated for the holiday season.
If you don't lob a javelin into your opponent with a "ho ho ho" then there's something wrong with you.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 25, 2010, 10:37:24 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 25, 2010, 10:39:32 am
Post by: Glowcat on December 25, 2010, 10:41:08 am
i'll allow santa to exist, god is too much
Since 'tis the season and the thread: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/12/santa-lives.html (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/12/santa-lives.html)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 25, 2010, 11:00:03 am
but i wont dispute s-nta's existence on His day. tomorrow, perhaps...
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 25, 2010, 12:15:26 pm
that blog is so full of fallacies i dont even!
but i wont dispute s-nta's existence on His day. tomorrow, perhaps...
Yes that name is far to holy to write down :P.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 25, 2010, 05:53:38 pm
SK: Now with juicy avatar!
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 25, 2010, 05:59:23 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 25, 2010, 07:55:45 pm
But now - 30 pages for some moldy old teleological argument? At least you dispelled that one.
Post by: Bauglir on December 25, 2010, 08:38:08 pm
Post by: Dakk on December 25, 2010, 11:15:44 pm
I just wished her a merry christmas, and then she goes on about how's she's so pissed about how everyone is wishing her a merry christmas. I ask her why, and she reaffirms that she's atheist and has the right to not participate in any religious stuff, then I just say something along the lines of "lololol its just christmas, I participate on it because its fun", then she says these things, using these words:
"Think what you will i am at war with religion"
"I am it's sworn enemy"
"Your just as bad as someone who believes in religion because you refuse to combat it"
"If your not part of the solution your part of the problem"
"Religion is bad religion is the cause of more death than anything else"
"they are brainwashed husks that are foolish"
Then I sorta say something along the lines of "Uhhh but like, doesn't actively waging war against religion and hating religious people just because you think religion is evil, put you on the same level as the people you hate so much, like, fanatic religious militants who want to convert you at all costs?"
Then she goes like this:
"you fight fire with fire"
"and you can't be wrong"
This is direct copypasta from the chat window, nothing has been altered. I actualy missed a few things because the chat engine wouldn't keep everything logged.
Now I know why some people just flinch away if you mention you're atheist. I'm atheist, not anti-theist.
Its even more ironic that while she once prized herself on her clarity of mind and ability to carry intellectual coversations, she ust refused to talk to me after I pointed out just how ridiculous everything she was saying is.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 25, 2010, 11:20:55 pm
The passion for "not religion" is comparable to religion.
But this is just crazy. I feel that many Christians have gone off the track, so to speak, for example: Loving you're enemies. I pray for the forgiveness of my enemies. And that ain't brainwashing.
"If your not part of the solution your part of the problem"
Strangely this sounds quite a bit like it's straight from Scripture.
"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."
The son of G-d himself said that.
Post by: Dakk on December 25, 2010, 11:30:53 pm
Why saying God is a bad thing? Why wishing people a merry christmas just because is a bad thing? Why not flat out denying the evidence that jesus may have in fact existed make me a blind misguided fool? Thats as silly as being hated because you don't believe in something.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 25, 2010, 11:34:34 pm
A war on religion is the same as Jihad.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 08:17:05 am
Or well, I suppose one could hypothetically take it from the population management angle rather than from the purely cultural one, in which case simply reducing the population of the more wide-spread and homogeneous religious would also be fine...but I didn't say that.
Post by: Andir on December 26, 2010, 05:18:56 pm
I saw something on the "news" that bothered me. Not sure exactly why, but they dedicated a half an hour on the "news" channel to discuss the three wise men and how all religions are tied together. I turned the channel because I wasn't really interested and turned back every few minutes to see if they moved on... 30 minutes of the "news." It almost prompted me to write a letter. How is theological history "new"s?
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 05:20:49 pm
Post by: Andir on December 26, 2010, 05:23:48 pm
I dunno... there isn't much to say about the wise men, is there?I only heard snippets, but some guy was trying to equate the light to the baby jesus and spice traders from Asia and I guess I should have paid more attention, but I was more upset that they spent so much time and his end result was that "all religions have a little Christianity in them." (His words...)
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 05:37:07 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 26, 2010, 08:01:02 pm
How is theological history "new"s?
In the same way that genies being real and actually just holograms (the lamps are the projectors) left behind by space aliens posing as angels in humanity's distant past is history. The History Channel needs to change its name.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 08:25:04 pm
"All religions have a little christianity in them...SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST CONVERT ALREADY, YOU HEATHEN SCUM!".If by having a little, you mean being a religion at all, then yes. But influence from other religions is expected. On a kind of counterpoint, Christianity has a lot of Judaism and Islam in it :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 26, 2010, 08:31:03 pm
On a kind of counterpoint, Christianity has a lot of Judaism and Islam in it :POn a technical note, it would be more accurate to say that Christianity has Judaism in it and Islam has Christianity in it, given the chronology.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 08:32:23 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 08:34:40 pm
Yeah, "Religions all have something in common" would be the more rational line.Which is about as meaningful as saying "all humans have something in common".
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 08:57:54 pm
THIS IS NEWS!
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 09:17:51 pm
hun the code of hamuribi was the first known set of laws and it was nothing to do with religion[/b]
it was from a king who said the reason he can make the laws is cause he was a god
but in reality it was rules from a king
not religious
Really people? Really?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 09:23:11 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 09:23:44 pm
No matter what you call yourself, someone will ruin it for you.Which is why I prefer ruining it for others instead.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 26, 2010, 09:28:19 pm
After talking a bit more with that girl I quoted earlier, I feel I shouldn't call myself atheist anymore, I don't wanna band myself with people so mind bogginly stupid to say something like thisYou aren't banded with them. As you know, atheists aren't a religion or even organized in any way. It's just a lack of a belief in gods, and you shouldn't bother with the trouble of re-labeling just because some atheists aren't smart.
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 09:30:13 pm
@ Dakk: Dude, you're being trolled.No matter what you call yourself, someone will ruin it for you.Which is why I prefer ruining it for others instead.
I would think so if I didn't know this girl in real life, she's like this with her family and other friends aswell, she goes to college with me.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 09:33:47 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 09:34:17 pm
No one forced her to celebrate Christmas.
And sworn enemy? Really?
I think the problem is that she's an idiot.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 09:44:09 pm
After talking a bit more with that girl I quoted earlier, I feel I shouldn't call myself atheist anymore, I don't wanna band myself with people so mind bogginly stupid to say something like this:I don't really see a problem with that. I mean, there's probably older examples of laws, but a historical slipup isn't a reason to disown a label.
hun the code of hamuribi was the first known set of laws and it was nothing to do with religion[/b]
it was from a king who said the reason he can make the laws is cause he was a god
but in reality it was rules from a king
not religious
Really people? Really?
Her point seems to be "The king gave those laws, not god, so we don't need god to be moral".
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 09:47:05 pm
After talking a bit more with that girl I quoted earlier, I feel I shouldn't call myself atheist anymore, I don't wanna band myself with people so mind bogginly stupid to say something like this:I don't really see a problem with that. I mean, there's probably older examples of laws, but a historical slipup isn't a reason to disown a label.
hun the code of hamuribi was the first known set of laws and it was nothing to do with religion[/b]
it was from a king who said the reason he can make the laws is cause he was a god
but in reality it was rules from a king
not religious
Really people? Really?
Her point seems to be "The king gave those laws, not god, so we don't need god to be moral".
The problem is that she made it she said that with the intention of saying religion did not affect society in any way even in old times.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 09:50:07 pm
No, the thing that she said is that religion influenced it to the point that kings could do that kind of thing (even though the king didn't actually do that ::)). Or at least, that's what I read from it. Other than the obvious "ALL RELIGION IS BAD AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED" thing that's going on there.After talking a bit more with that girl I quoted earlier, I feel I shouldn't call myself atheist anymore, I don't wanna band myself with people so mind bogginly stupid to say something like this:I don't really see a problem with that. I mean, there's probably older examples of laws, but a historical slipup isn't a reason to disown a label.
hun the code of hamuribi was the first known set of laws and it was nothing to do with religion[/b]
it was from a king who said the reason he can make the laws is cause he was a god
but in reality it was rules from a king
not religious
Really people? Really?
Her point seems to be "The king gave those laws, not god, so we don't need god to be moral".
The problem is that she made it she said that with the intention of saying religion did not affect society in any way even in old times.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 09:52:52 pm
ALL RELIGION IS BAD AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.I approve of that message.
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 09:53:04 pm
Her: not true
>follow horrible hamurabi code slipup.
I can take a screenie if you like.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 09:56:17 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 09:57:31 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 09:58:10 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 09:59:10 pm
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 10:00:07 pm
Innuendo intentional.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:00:37 pm
I would say that religion came first and put in the first laws.
And at the start of a pistol, there will be a race to call me an idiot.
On you're marks...
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:01:13 pm
i win!!
edit: now that my position was secured i can write a meaningful post. you do you believe earth and mankind was created as described in genesis, right? and the holy book is the only proof you need to demonstrate your point, right? i don't think there's any point in discussing this matter with you, then, we would be talking about different universes.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 10:01:59 pm
Post by: Dakk on December 26, 2010, 10:02:18 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:02:22 pm
Hurray for being religious and not liking organized religion :P
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:03:49 pm
idiot.
i win!!
You're prize is the golden example of irony.
Again, I would kindof object to "based on religion". Since if they're based on the religion... well, the religion had to have had those laws written down in the first place, right? And those initial laws couldn't have been based off religion (unless you're ok with unlimited circular logic).
That is true. But the way I see it is that G-d taught people himself. No written law so that doesn't count.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:07:45 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 26, 2010, 10:08:06 pm
...Although that implies he's extremely fickle or very hard to understand.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:15:54 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:18:15 pm
Well, yeah. Clearly if God did exist and talk to people (hmm, why did he stop doing that? Eh, whatever) then laws are based on his word.
...Although that implies he's extremely fickle or very hard to understand.
I believe that G-d still talks to people. He doesn't talk to people who don't pray to him I believe.
And yes, I think He/She(?) is hard to understand.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:20:20 pm
People ALWAYS twist things to their goals, whether that's for better or for worse.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 10:23:33 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:25:36 pm
Well, yeah. Clearly if God did exist and talk to people (hmm, why did he stop doing that? Eh, whatever) then laws are based on his word.
...Although that implies he's extremely fickle or very hard to understand.
I believe that G-d still talks to people. He doesn't talk to people who don't pray to him I believe.
And yes, I think He/She(?) is hard to understand.
how fucking unfair! he expect us to pick the right god from all the religions in the world, but doesn't give us a single hint, and if you fail, BAM! to hell with you.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 10:26:49 pm
...who#s the fanatic now? :D
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:27:59 pm
Hoold on. You agree that none of what you read or hear about god is true, yet you believe unconditionally.
...who#s the fanatic now? :D
Who are ya talking to?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 10:29:13 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 10:29:30 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:31:22 pm
I didn't even imply that what I hear and read about G-d is untrue.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:31:49 pm
Christian dude up there...people are posting too quickly.I'm not sure there's even any other Christian dudes here except for Urist.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 26, 2010, 10:32:36 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:35:59 pm
Christian dude up there...people are posting too quickly.I'm not sure there's even any other Christian dudes here except for Urist.
I feel so special.
No but I believe in most Jewish view of G-d.
Formless, omnipotent, omnipresent, beyond time, just and merciful, (Although often being described as jealous.)
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:39:07 pm
He sent all those miracles man! I mean most mailboxes are full of them :P.Hoold on. You agree that none of what you read or hear about god is true, yet you believe unconditionally.
...who#s the fanatic now? :D
Who are ya talking to?
you mean all those miracles buddha made? and he was talking to Zrk2, he's a christian too.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:40:28 pm
The real decisive factor is whether you believe Jesus was the son of God or not. Also, just and merciful are often described as opposites :PChristian dude up there...people are posting too quickly.I'm not sure there's even any other Christian dudes here except for Urist.
I feel so special.
No but I believe in most Jewish view of G-d.
Formless, omnipotent, omnipresent, beyond time, just and merciful, (Although often being described as jealous.)
Askot, Zrk2 hasn't even posted in the past several pages except for agreeing with me.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:43:04 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:44:02 pm
Well G-d as recorded in the Bible (Which is considered worthless here but hey.) did do a lot of different stuff. Led the Israelites to war, killed about thirty thousand of those same Israelites.God is bipolar then, problem solved.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 10:46:35 pm
I would describe it as chutzpah.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:49:08 pm
Askot, Zrk2 hasn't even posted in the past several pages except for agreeing with me.
Hoold on. You agree that none of what you read or hear about god is true, yet you believe unconditionally.
...who#s the fanatic now? :D
and he was surprised Zrk2 agreed with you.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 10:49:44 pm
The concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
He sent all those miracles man! I mean most mailboxes are full of them :P.Hoold on. You agree that none of what you read or hear about god is true, yet you believe unconditionally.
...who#s the fanatic now? :D
Who are ya talking to?
you mean all those miracles buddha made? and he was talking to Zrk2, he's a christian too.
Uh, no. Definitely not.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 10:51:23 pm
The concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
You say this like cold calculating decisions run the world.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:52:26 pm
Uh, no. Definitely not.
hum... sorry then.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 10:53:59 pm
God is an idea developed by ancient tribes as a way of forcing their ideals onto the rest of their tribe, yet leaving them beyound reproach. It was a way for the ancient shamans to keep their tribes in line and doing what was best for them. It also existed to explain natural phenomenon which were beyond the comprehension of thw people of the time.Ooh, let's generalize monotheistic religions onto all of religion!
The concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
Assuming you mean RELIGION not God (I think most early religions were polytheistic anyway), then it might have been true. But also like you said, it's incredibly inaccurate nowadays. It doesn't really matter anyway, it doesn't apply anymore, and we'd just be arguing about the past.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 10:55:07 pm
The concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
You say this like cold calculating decisions run the world.
i'd say he says that like cold calculating decisions should run the world
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 10:56:21 pm
I have no ice cream.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 10:57:47 pm
The concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
You say this like cold calculating decisions run the world.
But they do.
Uh, no. Definitely not.
hum... sorry then.
No problem, if you believe in G(g?)od, go right ahead.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
I disagree with the Christian faith on almost every premise (Except 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword'), I would never try to see it banned, merely argue against it with all my strength.
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 11:01:02 pm
But they do.
...
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
But they don't. Emotion and feeling run the world, and they have nothing to do with cold calculation.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:03:04 pm
Hey look, an actual quote I agree with. I'm actually religious, and believe in something completely different than Christianity (pantheistic and resurrection, woo), but I'll still defend your right to believe it. Of course, it helps when there's no such thing as a hell :PThe concept has long since become an anachronism and is currently causing more problems than it is solving.
You say this like cold calculating decisions run the world.
But they do.Uh, no. Definitely not.
hum... sorry then.
No problem, if you believe in G(g?)od, go right ahead.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
I disagree with the Christian faith on almost every premise (Except 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword'), I would never try to see it banned, merely argue against it with all my strength.
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
I like "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" though. There are elements of wisdom in almost every religion.
Emotion and feeling really shouldn't though. Justice or mercy, take your pick. I choose justice. Cold calculation isn't necessarily a bad thing.But they do.
...
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
But they don't. Emotion and feeling run the world, and they have nothing to do with cold calculation.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:04:44 pm
But they do.
...
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
But they don't. Emotion and feeling run the world, and they have nothing to do with cold calculation.
The cold calculating decisions of the heads of multinational corporations shape those feelings which run the world, mean those decisions do run the world
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 11:05:39 pm
It shows greed.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:08:57 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:11:09 pm
That's not cold calculation, that's desire (an emotion/feeling) for money :PBut they do.
...
Realmfighter, why the pointlessness?
But they don't. Emotion and feeling run the world, and they have nothing to do with cold calculation.
The cold calculating decisions of the heads of multinational corporations shape those feelings which run the world, mean those decisions do run the world
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 11:11:54 pm
The collapse was caused by guys like Bernie Madoff shafting others to get loaded, crashing the banks but leaving them still insanely rich. (Cold, calculation is exemplified here)I can see how that could be taken as cold calculation, but I see it as emotional greed.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 11:14:58 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
gee, thanks guys... you fightin for my right to be a christian and all... i'm an atheist, though...
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:16:39 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:21:12 pm
Not specifically you, just Christianity and other religions in general.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
gee, thanks guys... you fightin for my right to be a christian and all... i'm an atheist, though...
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 26, 2010, 11:24:58 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:26:02 pm
Not specifically you, just Christianity and otherSpoiler (click to show/hide)
gee, thanks guys... you fightin for my right to be a christian and all... i'm an atheist, though...religionsphilosophies in general.
That is how it really should work. If you say your philosophy forbids you from doing something that is just too bad, but the second your religion says you canèt do something...
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:29:19 pm
Point taken, but I'd generalize it even more to beliefs. Don't want to exclude politics in this, now do we? (Separation of church and state notwithstanding)Not specifically you, just Christianity and otherSpoiler (click to show/hide)
gee, thanks guys... you fightin for my right to be a christian and all... i'm an atheist, though...religionsphilosophies in general.
That is how it really should work. If you say your philosophy forbids you from doing something that is just too bad, but the second your religion says you canèt do something...
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:30:09 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:36:00 pm
But politics is nothing but applying philosophy to real world issues.I'll grant you that, but non-philosophical beliefs exist.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:39:27 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 26, 2010, 11:42:07 pm
Which are all rooted in philosophy because all beliefs come from ones philosophy.It depends on how you define philosophy, but that's just semantics.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:42:46 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 26, 2010, 11:46:26 pm
This thread is now semantics.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:50:28 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 26, 2010, 11:51:20 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on December 26, 2010, 11:52:07 pm
Post by: Micro102 on December 27, 2010, 12:55:26 am
Post by: Siquo on December 27, 2010, 07:46:33 am
Post by: Phmcw on December 27, 2010, 07:51:28 am
I'll make a comparison : I can't scientifically prove that there is no gosh in my room.
The reason is simple : there is no unified gosh theory.
Anyway I don't feel the need to prove it: I've never saw such gosh in action, and the very idea of a gosh haunting my room is all kind of silly.
It, however doesn't mean that I rebuke all idea of life after death.
However, If you add detail such as "the scary gosh of a little girl that will murder you if you don't send this email to ten poeple in the next hour", I'll pretty much laugh in your face, and add your email address to my spam list.
Do I believe in gosh?
It's a complicated problem if your think about it : I don't completely rebuke the idea of life after death, but still won't respond to you chain email.
My stance on the problem is that I don't believe in gosh, because gosh are something of the folklore, and that the hypothetic lasting trace of a deceased human deserve a more fitting name. But it's a purely semantic argument.
It's the same problem with the belief in god.
I won't agree that a traditional belief in god (catholic, Lutheran, Sunni Islam,...) is even remotely reasonable.
However, depending on how much your definition of god is watered down, it may come back to a reasonable level of sense, both scientifically and philosophically.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 08:03:38 am
and it's ghost
Post by: Siquo on December 27, 2010, 08:10:19 am
Anyway, a lot has been said, and we're bound to have a bit of repetition. But here's my say on my beliefs, or lack thereof, refined thank to this forum.Nice way of putting it.
Let me try that...
I can't scientifically prove that a god does or does not exist.
I have, however, seen a god in action.
Now the problem is all those different people with all those different views of what it is that they might have seen as well.
Maybe God is all of those, like a 3D object in flatland, like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It doesn't bother me, but it makes it hard for others to have a consistent "I'm right you're wrong" kind of discussion about it.
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 08:12:23 am
why isn't the idea of life after death or of the existence of god as absurd as the idea that a ghost exists in your room?
It isn't that the idea isn't absurd, but people are terrified by the idea of actually dying so they cling onto any hope they can imagine.
Post by: Phmcw on December 27, 2010, 08:30:04 am
why isn't the idea of life after death or of the existence of god as absurd as the idea that a ghost exists in your room? it's just some unprovable thing that somebody pulled out of his ass, and no amount of watering down will change that...
and it's ghost
Meh, It's precisely my point.
"the gosh of a little girl will haunt your house I you don't send back this email" is not the same that "After my death, If I still exist, I will do everything in my power to watch after you".
While the first is obvious bullshit (not obvious enough apparently because some poeple still send them), the second is not likely to happen, but who know?
Not all unverifiable claim have the same amount of "unbeliviability".
Siquo, that's what I speaking about. I don't believe in your god, but won't call you a fool : You don't waste too much time trying to please it, keep your free thinking, and it's actually believable. But then again it's a very watered down definition of god, and you could call it something else without impairing it too much. (beside, have your experience proved that "it" was in fact the creator of the universe, or was it merely "paranormal"?)
For me, you're like someone spending one buck every week at the national lottery : most likely won't win anything, but it's harmless, both for you and your entourage.
By comparison, a young hearth Christian is someone that send 500$ weekly to the same Nigerian bank waiting for his billion dollars to arrive.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 08:34:04 am
Amirite?
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 08:49:30 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 08:51:32 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 08:58:39 am
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 09:21:45 am
Still, it's gotten awfully quiet in here. What timezone is everyone in?
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 09:23:42 am
Well now, that's not how it would be. If the one or two religious people we have in here were to be quiet, then it'd all go back to atheists disagreeing rather verbally about how rude one may be in one's approach to the religious.One or two? Who would that be? I'm sure I've seen more than that.
And I'm on the west coast (Oregon, woo!), so it's 6 in the morning for me. Most of this forum is on the east coast though, so it'd be around 9 for them.
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 09:24:14 am
Pleased to please!
Still, it's gotten awfully quiet in here. What timezone is everyone in?
Physically? PST
But effectively this (http://xkcd.com/448/) until school starts up again.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 09:27:02 am
Anyways, OT. One of my bigger problems with religion as it exists:
(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3661/1293441818385.jpg)
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 09:37:34 am
Try again, Y/N?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 09:41:17 am
So no need to try again.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 09:53:36 am
"Indoctrinated religion" is the kind of religion that - if I may pull another number out of my behind - 90% of people start and end with.I didn't, and 76% of statistics are made up on the spot :P
So no need to try again.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 09:55:17 am
Post by: Siquo on December 27, 2010, 09:55:54 am
nope, what fun would this thread be if it was full of atheists friendly agreeing with each other?Atheist vs atheist: another argument down the hole. ;)
Post by: Phmcw on December 27, 2010, 09:58:34 am
Sorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.And back to my point. "Not all unverifiable view is equally unbelievable". Organised religion have had all the time needed to be proved absurd, thus are the one we oppose the most
Try again, Y/N?
I'd like to add that there is so much diversity in unprovable belief that I doubt very much that you can dismiss all with one argument.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 10:00:25 am
Ah, and if 90% is bad, you might as well burn them all, right? :)Not burn...but how about turning them into fertilizer? :D
Nah, really now. I'm not proposing solutions, just identifying problems.
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 10:08:55 am
Sorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.
Try again, Y/N?
Care to give your definition of religion? Because so far you seem to be defining Religion as a generic supernatural belief system.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 10:25:28 am
Religion is pretty much that. There's no real way to define it. I like the way Wikipedia says it thoughSorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.
Try again, Y/N?
Care to give your definition of religion? Because so far you seem to be defining Religion as a generic supernatural belief system.
"Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe is the best way to describe it in my opinion.
Post by: Siquo on December 27, 2010, 10:36:40 am
Nah, really now. I'm not proposing solutions, just identifying problems.Too many people are doing that already. Just look at the media, or politics.
Funny that the wikipedia definition sais "especially" which means "mostly but not limited to", so it can apply to those who believe that the universe was created by a big bang without the help of a supernatural agency as well ;)
This was already covered 150 pages ago, but I still think it's funny. Imagine that.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 11:17:25 am
And I'm in Central time man.
But back to reality Siquo provided a very different view of a nonspecific god.
No matter you look at Him/Her/(?) you will probably get a different idea every time.
But if that's the route we are going then we will probably open p a new can of crap and find out why most people here would be atheists.
And please none of this "I think religion is stupid so I'm not religious." It provides no insight at all.
Post by: Siquo on December 27, 2010, 11:21:00 am
It provides no insight at all.It provides us with insight into his lack thereof ;)
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 12:11:59 pm
Sorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.
Try again, Y/N?
Y
I look at what I think you specifically believe.
I see a religion that is not indoctrinated. Instead it is... wait... what religion isn't indoctrinated?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 12:13:31 pm
He's a madman.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 12:14:55 pm
My religion. Neither of my parents have the religion I do. Fuck, I don't even know anybody else that has my religion. And it's not a "personal religion" either. It has an established name and history.Sorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.
Try again, Y/N?
Y
I look at what I think you specifically believe.
I see a religion that is not indoctrinated. Instead it is... wait... what religion isn't indoctrinated?
My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 12:23:40 pm
And reincarnation? I believe that it happened. (Duh.)
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 12:43:42 pm
My religion. Neither of my parents have the religion I do. Fuck, I don't even know anybody else that has my religion. And it's not a "personal religion" either. It has an established name and history.Sorry, that only applies to indoctrinated religion, which I also disagree with.
Try again, Y/N?
Y
I look at what I think you specifically believe.
I see a religion that is not indoctrinated. Instead it is... wait... what religion isn't indoctrinated?
My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
That is interesting, that you joined a religion that someone else didn't teach you. I know you said you'd prefer not to disclose the specifics, but I think it's necessary at some point. We can not argue against your specific beliefs very well if we don't know what they are. Thus, we're arguing against mainstream christianity
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 12:45:58 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 12:53:40 pm
There is no need to get into specifics, he's not debating his religions, he only tried to say he follows a belief that was not indoctrinated to him/her by the parents/society. Even more so if it's only to disprove the fact that there can be religions that are not indoctrinated. If this was not the case, one could easily throw down a brandname, holy book and the belief/faith card.
A person keeping his religion to his/herself is the least of the worlds problems... Start getting worried when they start building churches. (insert flavor building of your choice here...)
Bonus points if he/she never raises their child to follow their own believes... my parents did so. It's not unheard off.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 12:57:10 pm
So you believe that you're gods did not create the universe and there are multiple deities?Essentially, yes. The gods are basically natural parts of this world. They're both immanent (in the world) and transcendent (beyond the world), hence the pantheism (You see that tree? Be nice to it, or it's going to bite you in the ass. Figuratively, of course, unless that tree reincarnates as a snake, and you happen to be vacationing in the wrong spot :P). But as far as actual creation goes, it doesn't matter. Either the gods were transcendent in the beginning, and caused the big bang or whatever, or they arose after the big bang. Either way, it doesn't matter. They're largely natural and neutral though, mostly apathetic to life as a whole. There's also many elements of panentheism. As I said before, the gods are transcendent and immanent. In the universe, permeating it, but also beyond it. The material does not exclude the spiritual.
And reincarnation? I believe that it happened. (Duh.)
And yeah, reincarnation. Means there's no hell for you to go to. Also means that I don't give a fuck what you believe. I believe I get extra "perks" by believing, but beyond that, no punishment for non-believers. Just beware of "what goes around, comes around" kinds of things.
And yes, I know I have to disclose at some point, but my religion involves a lot of beliefs that are... generally not accepted. It's not anything huge like racism or human/animal sacrifice, but it would probably lead to plenty of people that would call me crazy. It's also because I'm not 100% sure that this is the one religion I want. There are plenty of other specific beliefs to argue though. It's mainly just a matter of the name of the religion being unimportant, and me wanting to keep it to myself.
I will admit that I will tell you what religion I believe in if you can find it (probably wouldn't be too hard though).
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 01:08:04 pm
Anyway it's none of my business either way.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 01:10:50 pm
I got real curious and found a chart. Couldn't find one that lined up with you're beliefs.What chart is that? I want to see if my religion actually is on it.
Anyway it's none of my business either way.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 01:12:37 pm
Closest one I thought was Cao Dai.
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 01:12:51 pm
I got real curious and found a chart. Couldn't find one that lined up with you're beliefs.
Anyway it's none of my business either way.
I can give a (very, very generic) pointer, pagan ;)
But there are to many and often very personal flavors out there to pick just one. Seeing he's not into sacrifice, we can rule out old fashioned druidism :P (and yes that was a joke... put the stick down)
But Karma was mentioned, reincarnation also... A generic god (maybe two even, often opposites) or shared conscious...
This could go be an entire new topic/thread to have fun with... Guess my religion! :P
Post by: NaziBad on December 27, 2010, 01:12:55 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 01:23:03 pm
Neopagan, but close enough. But which "flavor" is the real question.I got real curious and found a chart. Couldn't find one that lined up with you're beliefs.
Anyway it's none of my business either way.
I can give a (very, very generic) pointer, pagan ;)
But there are to many and often very personal flavors out there to pick just one. Seeing he's not into sacrifice, we can rule out old fashioned druidism :P (and yes that was a joke... put the stick down)
But Karma was mentioned, reincarnation also... A generic god (maybe two even, often opposites) or shared conscious...
This could go be an entire new topic/thread to have fun with... Guess my religion! :P
The chart doesn't quite accurately describe what I believe though, just a hint.
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 01:24:31 pm
My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.
Guessing your particular religion is pretty much impossible due to overlapping beliefs. You'd have to give us specific hints before we'd have a reasonable chance of tracking it down and our guess would depend on you understanding the more common version of that religion since it's very possible that in coming to your own understanding you've adopted a label that doesn't apply. Given what little you've said about your beliefs I can see similarities in Hinduism, Jainism, and the other Asian religions.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 01:28:43 pm
Eh, perhaps, but that's applied to all religion as a whole. With that definition, I could have just as easily gone into... say, Buddhism.My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.
And yeah, there's tons of overlap, but I can't really think of any hints that wouldn't give it away. Looking at the Wikipedia articles of those various religions should help. The religion I have is on that chart, too.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 01:40:51 pm
To jump to his aid, that isn't what indoctrination is. Overall desire to join something is no more indoctrination than choosing to buy a mac instead of a dell or no computer.My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.
Eh, perhaps, but that's applied to all religion as a whole. With that definition, I could have just as easily gone into... say, Buddhism.My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.
And yeah, there's tons of overlap, but I can't really think of any hints that wouldn't give it away. Looking at the Wikipedia articles of those various religions should help. The religion I have is on that chart, too.
So... you consider yourself <religion X>, but are afraid to say what it is because you think some of the beliefs are crazy?
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 01:45:27 pm
To jump to his aid, that isn't what indoctrination is. Overall desire to join something is no more indoctrination than choosing to buy a mac instead of a dell or no computer.
I probably misspoke when I referred to it as indoctrination but your comparison is way off. The equivalent would be something closer to how society pushes certain norms onto us such as when it's appropriate to drink, that one should get married, etc.
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 01:48:11 pm
I gotta agree on the overlap thing. (neo)Paganism, shamanistic believes have a royal butt-load of overlap. From reincarnation, karma, god(s). Traditions set on the seasons and specific dates.
I for one haven't been able to put myself in any box yet... I don't feel the need though to do so. (and if someone did manage to do so for him/herself, good. That's not the point.)
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 01:51:58 pm
Not that they're crazy, not really anymore. I'm just having fun with people trying to guess it.To jump to his aid, that isn't what indoctrination is. Overall desire to join something is no more indoctrination than choosing to buy a mac instead of a dell or no computer.My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.Eh, perhaps, but that's applied to all religion as a whole. With that definition, I could have just as easily gone into... say, Buddhism.My parents are Christian, I believe in reincarnation and am pan-/polytheistic. How do you explain that?
The New Age religious movements are all about escaping the confines of more traditional religions and establishing oneself with a new "cleaner" version. In your case the indoctrination comes in the form of a need for religion itself and the emphasized search the vague concept of greater in your life. The search for meaning essentially.
And yeah, there's tons of overlap, but I can't really think of any hints that wouldn't give it away. Looking at the Wikipedia articles of those various religions should help. The religion I have is on that chart, too.
So... you consider yourself <religion X>, but are afraid to say what it is because you think some of the beliefs are crazy?
I believe the appropriate time to drink is never (you can drink if you want, but it's just stupid to do it) and marriage is unnecessary (just a formality), so where does that put me? :PTo jump to his aid, that isn't what indoctrination is. Overall desire to join something is no more indoctrination than choosing to buy a mac instead of a dell or no computer.
I probably misspoke when I referred to it as indoctrination but your comparison is way off. The equivalent would be something closer to how society pushes certain norms onto us such as when it's appropriate to drink, that one should get married, etc.
Neo-pagan, easy guess would be Wicca, but that's on the chart. Could be a shamanistic one, often lots of deities. Not really guessing here. To many as I pointed out.Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Wicca it is :D
I gotta agree on the overlap thing. (neo)Paganism, shamanistic believes have a royal butt-load of overlap. From reincarnation, karma, god(s). Traditions set on the seasons and specific dates.
I for one haven't been able to put myself in any box yet... I don't feel the need though to do so. (and if someone did manage to do so for him/herself, good. That's not the point.)
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 01:55:37 pm
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Wicca it is :DReally? You were shy about Wicca?
Also, I didn't think Wiccans believed in reincarnation
Edit: Also, Wiccans are actually relatively popular. I dated a Wiccan once online
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 02:00:07 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 02:04:38 pm
Aren't female Wiccans called witches?
For one he's male according to his profile
For two... I always thought that was only if they actually practiced the magic. Otherwise the term is Wiccan I think.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 02:06:39 pm
Post by: Glowcat on December 27, 2010, 02:09:52 pm
I didn't think Wiccans believed in reincarnation
Me neither, which is why I was stumped by one of the more common New Age choices. Wikipedia seems to back him up though.
Why would you be ashamed of being a Wiccan anyway?
Quote from: CrownOfFire
I believe the appropriate time to drink is never (you can drink if you want, but it's just stupid to do it) and marriage is unnecessary (just a formality), so where does that put me? :P
Escaping our society's norms (or accepting them on your own terms) isn't an all-or-nothing process. So long as you understand why you're searching for meaning in religion then I can't really accuse you of falling in line.
Post by: Nikov on December 27, 2010, 02:14:06 pm
Oh I know he's male. I was just wondering. You don't get many Wicca where I live.
I couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting a Wiccan during the course of my life. Seriously, I've always had at least one within an arms-throw for the last... ten years.
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 02:17:39 pm
Oh I know he's male. I was just wondering. You don't get many Wicca where I live.
I couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting a Wiccan during the course of my life. Seriously, I've always had at least one within an arms-throw for the last... ten years.
Depending on where you live though, it can be easier or harder for them to step forth and admit it... I know a few good villages in my country where you better keep that to yourself. You won't be burned these days... but you might become a social outcast very easily.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 02:19:52 pm
Oh I know he's male. I was just wondering. You don't get many Wicca where I live.
I couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting a Wiccan during the course of my life. Seriously, I've always had at least one within an arms-throw for the last... ten years.
Depending on where you live though, it can be easier or harder for them to step forth and admit it... I know a few good villages in my country where you better keep that to yourself. You won't be burned these days... but you might be a social outcast very easily.
I wonder how much of this has to do with people being completely unaware of what they believe. I know I've had to argue against more than a few people who thought wicca was satanism.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 02:25:05 pm
Not shy, just didn't feel like creating unnecessary conflict around it. Not exactly the most popular of religions, especially around fundies (WICCA IS DEVIL WORSHIP HERP DERP). But yeah, lots of unnecessary baggage that comes with it.Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Wicca it is :DReally? You were shy about Wicca?
Also, I didn't think Wiccans believed in reincarnation
And yes, reincarnation. It's generally accepted in Wicca.
Aren't female Wiccans called witches?It depends. I don't know much about Wicca in general (I've mostly just been reading into it, don't have any actual stuff for it), but from what I've read, it seems to depend on the person. Some people call Wicca "Witchcraft" or "The Craft", but it's generally inaccurate. Wicca refers to a religion, and witchcraft refers to a magical practice, to paraphrase a nice site (http://wicca.timerift.net), full of information. I recommend the Wicca 101/FAQ thing for some quick reading if you want. Witch is a gender-neutral term too. But generally speaking, not all witches are Wiccan, and not all Wiccans are witches.
I search for meaning in religion because... hmm. Well, it's because of belief really. I have no real reason to believe what I do, I just... do. I can't really explain it. But I just feel that Wicca is... right. It feels right. It's a weird feeling too, kind of... warm. Christianity never gave me that. I never felt a connection to the world through Christianity, it just felt empty. So I guess I'm searching for a deeper meaning and understanding of the world, and myself. Mostly myself though. Religion should be a personal journey.I didn't think Wiccans believed in reincarnation
Me neither, which is why I was stumped by one of the more common New Age choices. Wikipedia seems to back him up though.
Why would you be ashamed of being a Wiccan anyway?Quote from: CrownOfFireI believe the appropriate time to drink is never (you can drink if you want, but it's just stupid to do it) and marriage is unnecessary (just a formality), so where does that put me? :P
Escaping our society's norms (or accepting them on your own terms) isn't an all-or-nothing process. So long as you understand why you're searching for meaning in religion then I can't really accuse you of falling in line.
Never met another neopagan, let alone another Wiccan. You'd think there'd be more around one of the greenest cities in the world, but nope. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. It's a solitary religion though, so that explains most of it.Oh I know he's male. I was just wondering. You don't get many Wicca where I live.
I couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting a Wiccan during the course of my life. Seriously, I've always had at least one within an arms-throw for the last... ten years.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 02:32:17 pm
Anyways. I think that a lot of people don't realize that modern paganism is more popular than they think.
At the Air Force base in Colorado Spring there is a Druid temple thing.
I don't know. Just something about worshiping nature. It could be that in the Bible G-d told man he commanded nature. It's weird to compare religions.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 02:45:21 pm
I search for meaning in religion because... hmm. Well, it's because of belief really. I have no real reason to believe what I do, I just... do. I can't really explain it. But I just feel that Wicca is... right. It feels right. It's a weird feeling too, kind of... warm. Christianity never gave me that. I never felt a connection to the world through Christianity, it just felt empty. So I guess I'm searching for a deeper meaning and understanding of the world, and myself. Mostly myself though. Religion should be a personal journey.This is interesting to me. I think it would also be interesting to those looking for the source of beliefs such as these (I think Sam Harris was working on this).
The big problem is that these feelings arise in multiple people around the world with widely differing beliefs. I was a Mormon for several years for exactly this type of feeling. They call it a "burning of the bosom", and every mormon I've talked to has felt it (usually very strongly and relatively often).
Certain asiatic monks meditate in order to feel this as well. By imagining a fire burning in the center of their body and then moving up a central tube, they actually raise their body temperature. How much? Well they sit nearly naked in a cave in a mountain below freezing, put wet cloths over their shoulders, and raise their temperature enough to make it visibly steam. The cloth is dry within an hour or something like that.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 02:52:29 pm
That's my guess at least.
Post by: Phmcw on December 27, 2010, 02:56:09 pm
On the whole placebo effect is one of the thing that motivate me the most to learn science.
What is it? Where does it stop? what can it do? How does it work? No need for a gosh to get paranormal, it's right under your noses.
AND IT WILL BE EXPLAINED TOO!!!!
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 03:00:22 pm
Placebo effect. They "trick" themselves into thinking that their is a "fire" inside them.
That's my guess at least.
Sure, but that doesn't say much as to the nature of the effect. The Placebo effect is still completely unexplained. Also, the placebo effect is supposed to differ from person to person based on their expectation, but a sensation of comforting and psychologically reinforcing warmth is relatively consistent among very different areas.
On the whole placebo effect is one of the thing that motivate me the most to learn science.It would be amazing if we figured out how this works. I would think it would work differently for different effects (like cancer is different from location to location). If we could figure out how it works, we could exploit it in much more cool ways.
What is it? Where does it stop? what can it do? How does it work? No need for a gosh to get paranormal, it's right under your noses.
AND IT WILL BE EXPLAINED TOO!!!!
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 03:09:58 pm
If we are to attempt to take advantage of this we need gullible people, or hypnosis. We have plenty of the former.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 03:11:41 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 03:16:35 pm
Most won't touch it with a 30 feet pole. If by direct or indirect "effect" you are responsible of influencing another person's life... one is held accountable. Your best intentions could be opposite of what this person wanted to learn from this life. (Intention is enough, there could be 0 effect...)
Karma is a bitch.
Placebo's fit the above often ... But if the scientist figure it out... that's ok also :P
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 03:26:11 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2010, 03:33:40 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 03:37:13 pm
Anyway. Do you practice most Wicca rituals?
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 03:39:06 pm
In addition to the above (and if I'm remembering correctly), Wiccans have what's called the "Rule of Three", in that anything you do to another person or the world will return to you eventually times three, whether it's good or bad.Which is correct, and is pretty much WHY you follow the Rede :P
I gotta admit I didn't see Wicca coming. I really didn't.Not yet (probably), still extremely new, haven't even gotten any stuff related to it. Just been reading a lot online. I probably will though, eventually.
Anyway. Do you practice most Wicca rituals?
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 04:17:36 pm
Which is exactly why the Wiccan rede applies "An (if) it harm none, do as you will". (I prefer the extended version that includes "An it cause harm, do as you must") I really like this rule (more of a piece of advice though), if I could choose just one rule for the world to live by, it'd be this. And I generally hear that harm includes unintentional harm, and just generally influencing others without their consent.Which is just another version of the Golden Rule, which is among practically all cultures and religions.
Even if the placebo effect is a placebo, if it works, it works, right?Depends on what you call "works". It does not imply that any detail of the religion is accurate in any way. All that it implies that if you think it will comfort you, it will. You can get the same effect if you think drinking orange juice will make you drunk.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 04:38:17 pm
Let me just say I think your belief is extremely silly - no insult intended.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 04:56:28 pm
Oh my fuck...Wicca.You can turn that onto any religion. Since we're actually trying to debate (preferably with the purpose of persuading others), this is just about meaningless and useless.
Let me just say I think your belief is extremely silly - no insult intended.
While we don't have to respect others peoples beliefs (I certainly don't respect any superstition), I think it's important that we still treat them with a certain amount of dignity.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 05:22:17 pm
I even went so far as to include the non-offensivity remark.
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 05:28:37 pm
OH COME ON.
I even went so far as to include the non-offensivity remark.
For it to work you need to use it in a sentence that leaves something of a doubt... you were just outright insulting. Still its the thought what counts I guess. :P
It (just) being christmas and all.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 05:33:30 pm
OH COME ON.ok, let me give an example then.
I even went so far as to include the non-offensivity remark.
"You're a bitch, no offense intended".
Putting a "no offense" disclaimer doesn't make it true.
I would say it's fine though, if you justified what you said. Something like "The belief in magic just seems silly. Every magician i can think of has been shown to be a hoax" would be a lot less offensive, and actually contribute the conversation.
So, what is it abouty Wicca that you find silly?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 05:53:01 pm
Point one: Reincarnation is bullcrap. It falls straight into the middle of ye olde "too obviously wish-fulfilment" territory. "Why obvious?", you might want to ask? Look at it. JUST LOOK AT IT.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2010, 05:55:09 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 06:00:56 pm
Alright then!
Point one: Reincarnation is bullcrap. It falls straight into the middle of ye olde "too obviously wish-fulfilment" territory. "Why obvious?", you might want to ask? Look at it. JUST LOOK AT IT.
It works both ways ya know...
[citation needed]
Really now... thats the fun bit about this thread. But just insulting someone and just going "Look at it!" is the same as non-atheists citing bible passages for you to believe or me claiming to the savior telling you to stfu! - no insult intended.
I should prob stop feeding the troll... - no insult intended - anyone willing to pick this thread up again :P
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 06:03:36 pm
Also, karma-esque concepts in general: Wish fulfilment again. The world does not conform to most people's idea of fairness, so they like to imagine that there's some late payback for all deeds without adequate reaction to them in the present.
It works both ways ya know...I'm thinking there's a few little differences between pointing at a "holy book" (of made up shit) or pointing at observable psychology.
Really now... thats the fun bit about this thread. But just insulting someone and just going "Look at it!" is the same as non-atheists citing bible passages for you to believe or me claiming to the savior telling you to stfu! - no insult intended.
I should prob stop feeding the troll... - no insult intended - anyone willing to pick this thread up again :P
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 06:05:52 pm
I'm afraid I must agree with Khan here. Reincarnation, or any other afterlife system, is quite obviously just a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of death.No problem agreeing with Khan. Khan not stupid, just brash.
Reincarnation makes more sense than an afterlife in some other territory like heaven, or the underworld of Hades, or with Odin while waiting for Valhalla. It solves the problem of the infinite amount of souls that are being moved around, while also recognizing souls of those other than humans.
The big problem I have with reincarnation (in any of it's forms), is that is assumes a relatively constant amount of life. If there are born more humans in one generation than the previous, new souls have to be created. If you spread it out to animals, than the proliferation of insects should create a lacking in the souls of other creatures. Depending on your specific flavor, the system eventually breaks. The buffer of souls (while waiting for spots in life to open up) would have to be far larger than all the things alive today. Then we could systematically disprove the theory by propegating life beyond the limit of the buffer.
There is that, and then the whole "we have no evidence a soul even exists".
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 06:08:16 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 06:10:38 pm
Third point! Souls are...see it coming...wish fulfilment again: the wish for being special, for not just being moving dead matter in a complex configuration, but something metaphysical.I disagree with this point. Souls I always figured were a wish for explaining personality and death. "father was moving, now father is not moving. What's the difference? The dead father must be missing life.", where life later redefines as a soul.
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 06:12:46 pm
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 06:12:51 pm
Point two: Karma, or its rule-of-three variation. Three is a pretty number with lots of practical and mathematical applications. People like pretty things. Some people like pretty things so much they make them part of their world-view (personally, I dig skywatching). But there's absolutely no reason why the world should work that way.
You are missing the point on Karma there. Do you need a solid number to work with, I would go with 3,14 or 42, for shit&giggles mostly.
Quote
Also, karma-esque concepts in general: Wish fulfilment again. The world does not conform to most people's idea of fairness, so they like to imagine that there's some late payback for all deeds without adequate reaction to them in the present.
Fair enough... go nuts I would say. No really. If that's how you feel, go for it. If the only thing that is holding you back (or not) is your sense of right and wrong. What you can do to another person that's the way to go. Like Bill Hicks would say, Enjoy the ride!
It works both ways ya know...
Really now... thats the fun bit about this thread. But just insulting someone and just going "Look at it!" is the same as non-atheists citing bible passages for you to believe or me claiming to the savior telling you to stfu! - no insult intended.
I should prob stop feeding the troll... - no insult intended - anyone willing to pick this thread up again :P
Quote
I'm thinking there's a few little differences between pointing at a "holy book" (of made up shit) or pointing at observable psychology.
The difference here is having the common decency of saying you don't agree with something ... or referring to it as "of made up shit". <- This bit might be confusing to you, but pretty important to keeping this thread "not locked". "holy book" by it self, would of sufficed...
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 06:19:12 pm
Quote
The difference here is having the common decency of saying you don't agree with something ... or referring to it as "of made up shit". <- This bit might be confusing, but pretty important to keeping this thread "not locked".Oy pardon me, of course it's not made up, or shit, it's totally the word of god, at the very worst written down with some minor mistakes by his most faithful devotees, and it's totally full of valuable moral teachings and undeniable facts about the nature of the world.
Happy now? ::)
Quote
Fair enough... go nuts I would say. No really. If that's how you feel, go for it. If the only thing that is holding you back (or not) is your sense of right and wrong. What you can do to another person that's the way to go. Like Bill Hicks would say, Enjoy the ride!My sense of right and wrong not so much as my sense of what I can get away with. But I'm a nice guy, so not too many atrocities committed on my part.
Post by: Sinned on December 27, 2010, 06:50:00 pm
QuoteThe difference here is having the common decency of saying you don't agree with something ... or referring to it as "of made up shit". <- This bit might be confusing, but pretty important to keeping this thread "not locked".Oy pardon me, of course it's not made up, or shit, it's totally the word of god, at the very worst written down with some minor mistakes by his most faithful devotees, and it's totally full of valuable moral teachings and undeniable facts about the nature of the world.
Happy now? ::)
Actually, except the part where you discovered the italic option and tried to once again to ridicule me and others I agree that most books of faith, aka for you, as "Holy books full of shit" to be just that. Holy books mean very little to me, childrens book's might hold the same story as much... lying, stealing, killing = bad. The obvious stuff one might say... For me though there is no holy book and for many pagans, there is none also.
Even then for who it is important, it's very hard around these times to find a "holy book" not being reinterpreted, translated and then reinterpreted again for 2000+ years on end... by the victors that is, as they just don't write history.
Quote
Fair enough... go nuts I would say. No really. If that's how you feel, go for it. If the only thing that is holding you back (or not) is your sense of right and wrong. What you can do to another person that's the way to go. Like Bill Hicks would say, Enjoy the ride!
Quote
My sense of right and wrong not so much as my sense of what I can get away with.
That's very reassuring...
Quote
But I'm a nice guy, so not too many atrocities committed on my part.
Aren't we lucky :P
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 06:53:25 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 06:57:33 pm
i just don't get it, though, every religious person is so special that his god personally speaks to him, but us atheists must really be worthless, cuz no god wants nothing with us... i know i'd convert if jesus christ personally descended to earth to tickle my balls...
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 06:58:38 pm
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 27, 2010, 07:00:06 pm
Khan I assure you he thinks you're belief (Or lack thereof.) is silly.Oh, quite possibly. BUT NOW I FEEL INSULTED AND OFFENDED AND I'M GONNA CRY AND CALL THE MODS YOU INCONSIDERATE RUDE RESPECTLESS PRICK!!!!11
...oh blimey.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 07:04:49 pm
Ask and it shall be given.?
Post by: Willfor on December 27, 2010, 07:06:20 pm
?Askot Bokbondeler and it shall be given.?
Post by: malimbar04 on December 27, 2010, 07:31:27 pm
Relax. We'd like you to be considerate is all. We're not whining or banning you or ignoring you. I'm not personally insulted, and it's likely that other people have a pretty thick skin when it comes to your insults.Khan I assure you he thinks you're belief (Or lack thereof.) is silly.Oh, quite possibly. BUT NOW I FEEL INSULTED AND OFFENDED AND I'M GONNA CRY AND CALL THE MODS YOU INCONSIDERATE RUDE RESPECTLESS PRICK!!!!11
...oh blimey.
However, it was stated that the point of this thread is to try to convince others. Being so absurdly rude (and uncreative in your insults) makes you look like a child, and does a great deal to regress the thread down to a 3rd grade level, resulting in very little convincing. Don't misunderstand me, you have some good points. We'd like them to be heard though, and maybe even have them plant a seed of thought in a believer.
Let me put it this way, suppose I wanted to teach you how to comb your hair. Then suppose I went about it like this "BUT I THINK UNCOMBED HAIR IS STUPID AND GRUNDGY". How effective is this? Suppose I went about it like this "Oh pardon me, people who don't comb their hair are just perfectly clean, and their tangled hair isn't at all nasty". How effective is that? You change peoples mind not like this, but by showing them examples of what it would be like to have combed hair (look at how pretty that girls combed hair is!), or by putting the idea in their head of their flaws (man, theres no way a girl could run their fingers through that hair!).
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 09:46:29 pm
i just don't get it, though, every religious person is so special that his god personally speaks to him, but us atheists must really be worthless, cuz no god wants nothing with us... i know i'd convert if jesus christ personally descended to earth to tickle my balls...It's not that religious people are special. It's that atheists actively deny G-d.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2010, 09:48:45 pm
And?Ask and it shall be given.?
It's not that religious people are special. It's that atheists actively deny G-d.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 10:57:24 pm
many people get doubts about their religion and ask god for a sign, i'd suppose god would understand someone who lost both his son and wife in a car accident getting doubts about his supreme benevolence, and asking him for a sign instead of downright renouncing ones belief is an act of great faith, why doesn't god talk to those people, though?
Post by: Retro on December 27, 2010, 10:59:06 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ISiPl0GjU
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 27, 2010, 11:09:04 pm
yes, but we do it because we have no good reason not to, god never spoke to us like he did to you. don't forget allah also speaks to his believers, and mormons and wiccans get fuzzy feelings, etc. do you get fuzzy feelings from wiccan gods too? do you actively deny wiccan gods? is CrownofFire deluded and wiccan gods do not exist? or is it you who is deluded? why should we take your word over anybody else's and follow your religion?
many people get doubts about their religion and ask god for a sign, i'd suppose god would understand someone who lost both his son and wife in a car accident getting doubts about his supreme benevolence, and asking him for a sign instead of downright renouncing ones belief is an act of great faith, why doesn't god talk to those people, though?
I think that one must have persistence. I don't think that CrownofFire is deluded. I just don't agree with him.
And some would say that he does talk to those people. Once again. I believe that if you keep asking for an answer, it will be given.
Hence quoting Scripture with "Ask and it shall be given."
this is why god does not talk to humans any more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ISiPl0GjU
That's only proof of Hell.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 27, 2010, 11:19:30 pm
I think that one must have persistence. I don't think that CrownofFire is deluded. I just don't agree with him.
is he wrong? you know, for us outsiders your word is as good as his, if yours is the true faith it should give you some perk over false faiths, though, or your god is as good as any non existing gods.
then i'll be persistent, do you mind if i ask the wiccan gods for a sign first? and how persistent should i be? when should i decide, well, this god aind gonna respond to me so i better move on to the next on the list, hey buddah! yo listnin, bro?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 27, 2010, 11:36:41 pm
I think that one must have persistence.Reasonable persistence is one thing. Spending your entire life (the general time frame demanded by religions when waiting for favors from god) devoted to doing somthing demonstrably false (more on that below) is quite another.
Quote
And some would say that he does talk to those people.Then prove it.
Quote
Once again. I believe that if you keep asking for an answer, it will be given.Here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567) is a study on the effects of prayer in healing heart surgery patients. For those of you too lazy to read, it found that prayer only increased the chances of complications developing (likely from the stress of knowing that other people expect you to make a divine recovery through their efforts) and healed no one. Then, of course, there's the old question of why no god will heal amputees, or do anything else supernatural. That's just healing, but so far no one has given even a drop of proof that any kind of prayer does anything to help anyone.
Hence quoting Scripture with "Ask and it shall be given."
Post by: Willfor on December 27, 2010, 11:39:31 pm
this is why god does not talk to humans any more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ISiPl0GjU
Counterpoint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt5AJr0wls0
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 27, 2010, 11:44:20 pm
First of all, the Wiccan Rede is NOT The Golden Rule. It doesn't say anything about how you want to be treated. When combined with the Rule of Three, MAYBE, but not with it along. The Wiccan Rede is ADVISING you to harm none (not JUST harm none, but it's very roughly shortened, don't try to say it's "harm none"), the Golden Rule tells you to treat others how you want to be treated. The Rede is just a piece of advice, advising you to harm none, it doesn't say anything about doing good. The Golden Rule explicitly TELLS you to do good (or bad if you're a masochist I suppose :P).
By the way, I believe that every god and goddess has aspects, or rather is a "facet" of, the God and Goddess. So basically, when you worship X other god(s), you're really just worshiping certain aspects of the God and/or Goddess. It's not strictly wrong, but it's not the whole "truth". In other words, every religion (and even atheism) has elements of truth to it. It's a strange concept to wrap your head around, but my opinion is that people pick and choose their gods, and I just chose the "right" ones.
I'm not going to try to convince anybody though, Wicca is very strong on personal responsibility, so you'll figure out what's right eventually, on your own.
And now do you see what I mean by unnecessary conflict? :P
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 28, 2010, 12:06:26 am
is he wrong? you know, for us outsiders your word is as good as his, if yours is the true faith it should give you some perk over false faiths, though, or your god is as good as any non existing gods.
then i'll be persistent, do you mind if i ask the wiccan gods for a sign first? and how persistent should i be? when should i decide, well, this god aind gonna respond to me so i better move on to the next on the list, hey buddah! yo listnin, bro?
That sounds like it may be blasphemy.
Anyway. I don't have much experience in this department. but I guess you would have to really want to receive salvation. Like really want it. Make changes in you're life. That sort of thing.
I do believe that G-d told me something in a dream. Possibly twice.
And I don't think of atheists as outsiders I think of them as atheists.
Post by: Phmcw on December 28, 2010, 04:25:24 am
Answer this question then, will they be saved. If not, why?
Post by: Shades on December 28, 2010, 06:37:57 am
It's not that religious people are special. It's that atheists actively deny G-d.
It's not that we deny god, it's that she isn't real it's like denying santa, ghosts or the invisible teapot orbiting the earth. And religious people are special and should be treated as such, we have institutions that can help delusional people.
I think the poeple that blew themselves in the WTC had a strong faith, and a VERY strong desire for salvation.
Answer this question then, will they be saved. If not, why?
Minority extremists of all religions tend towards violence but aren't a good sample of the whole in any case. Of course your right in that according to what they imagine to be true they will have their salvation.
Post by: Phmcw on December 28, 2010, 06:51:48 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 06:55:49 am
Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
Post by: Shades on December 28, 2010, 07:02:29 am
They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
According to them it's the word of their god. The fact it was the word of people doesn't make much odds really.
Post by: Glowcat on December 28, 2010, 07:05:57 am
Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 07:10:34 am
They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
Post by: Shades on December 28, 2010, 07:11:42 am
They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.
In your view. Not in theirs. There isn't a difference though.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 07:15:21 am
Also, I know this was a page or so back... but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad: As an atheist there's really no difference between any holy book and the latest edition of The National Enquirer (http://"http://www.nationalenquirer.com/") in my eyes. If I were to call that publication a worthless pile of feces, how is that any different? You are treating "holy book" as something special in a world where equality is thrown out the window.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 07:17:37 am
(devil's advocate) The problem here... if I take the advice of my inner self, it tells me that I should kill the others so that I have more room to do my stuff. Now, I'm not listening to others. In fact, I hate the others because they have something I need.They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
Post by: Shade-o on December 28, 2010, 07:18:37 am
However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?
It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!
Post by: Shades on December 28, 2010, 07:23:13 am
but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad:
Depends what they mean by attacking. Burning/destroying books I'm kinda against for various ingrained reasons. But I have no objection to people attacking it's content, the same way you should any fiction book that claims to be non-fiction. Or any non-fiction book that needs to be corrected as new information comes to light.
However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?
Most religions are inherently selfish so that actually goes well with it :)
It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!
How about a möbius kitten?
Post by: Shade-o on December 28, 2010, 07:29:50 am
Keeping it to yourself means it's much more complicated. For example, it could mean that you have discovered the belief to be false and you don't want to drag other people down, you have discovered a horrible Cthulhu-esque truth and don't want to drag other people down, or you get satisfaction from seeing the rest of humanity dragged down from your own inaction.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 07:32:53 am
Do we still take advice on taking religious advice, though?Not selfish, you should figure it out on your own. I'm not giving advice, I'm telling you to think for yourself. You want to find the gods, find them on your own. Be responsible for your self.
However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?
It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!
You don't listen to yourself, you listen to the gods.(devil's advocate) The problem here... if I take the advice of my inner self, it tells me that I should kill the others so that I have more room to do my stuff. Now, I'm not listening to others. In fact, I hate the others because they have something I need.They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
Of course, it gets back to the omni-benevolence thing. The true creator would not approve of such silly humans altering the structure of those shiny buildings and even those pesky viruses living inside.A holy book is just more indoctrinated organized religion. You shouldn't need a "prophet" to tell you what to believe. Think for yourself. I'm not against believing in the books, I'm against blind belief without question.
Also, I know this was a page or so back... but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad: As an atheist there's really no difference between any holy book and the latest edition of The National Enquirer (http://"http://www.nationalenquirer.com/") in my eyes. If I were to call that publication a worthless pile of feces, how is that any different? You are treating "holy book" as something special in a world where equality is thrown out the window.
Most religions involving more than one person involve some sort of Telling-People-Things. Preaching, evangelism, missionaries, services, pamphlets, all that. They are Right Path > Everybody gets on Right Path > Everybody Wins.Or it means that I believe that religion should be discovered on its own, without outside influence. Preaching tells somebody to believe. I want to tell people to question their beliefs, not blindly follow them. You can tell people that no matter what religion you are. The conundrum comes in when you look at those that use those tactics themselves.
Keeping it to yourself means it's much more complicated. For example, it could mean that you have discovered the belief to be false and you don't want to drag other people down, you have discovered a horrible Cthulhu-esque truth and don't want to drag other people down, or you get satisfaction from seeing the rest of humanity dragged down from your own inaction.
Post by: Shade-o on December 28, 2010, 07:40:03 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on December 28, 2010, 07:43:32 am
They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
you are reading the specifics of your religion on the internet. did god wrote those wikapedia pages and blog entries? you admit to pursue a faith invented by 20th century "historians"* that failed archeology forever. your religion isn't better than any other, did the gods only sprung into existence in the 20th century? why did nobody else in the entire human history ever felt the presence of the right gods? why are your religion's version of ron l. hubbard any better than everyone else?
*more like larpers playin asterix and obelix, amirite?
Post by: Cthulhu on December 28, 2010, 07:51:24 am
Learn about religion by reading holy books and the words of people in your religion. Filter those teachings through your moral compass. Don't take anything at face value, but don't discredit teachings just because they were written by people (hint, everything you will ever learn about your religion was taught to you by a human). This is where critical thinking becomes important. Throw out the bathwater, but take the time to find the baby first.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 07:56:22 am
You don't listen to yourself, you listen to the gods.I'd argue that that's impossible. You cannot be raised and not be told what's right and wrong. By all accounts (I've seen) children are possessive and inherently greedy. Their parents are always telling them to share, to be nice, etc. If not by their parents, their teachers, judges, police... If you truly think that you can listen to "your personal god" through your whole life without being told by someone at some point what is the right thing to do, you are deluding yourself.
A holy book is just more indoctrinated organized religion. You shouldn't need a "prophet" to tell you what to believe. Think for yourself. I'm not against believing in the books, I'm against blind belief without question.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 08:11:45 am
I don't learn all of this from the internet. Wicca just happens to fit my views. First you establish your views, THEN you find a religion that fits them. I learn what others do, then look to my own views and I use them only if they fit.They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.
And you tell the difference... how?
you are reading the specifics of your religion on the internet. did god wrote those wikapedia pages and blog entries? you admit to pursue a faith invented by 20th century "historians"* that failed archeology forever. your religion isn't better than any other, did the gods only sprung into existence in the 20th century? why did nobody else in the entire human history ever felt the presence of the right gods? why are your religion's version of ron l. hubbard any better than everyone else?
*more like larpers playin asterix and obelix, amirite?
And stop trying to attack the history of it, you're completely failing to do it too. Wicca and other neopagan religions are a reconstruction of old traditional folk religion of early societies. There's no history of "my grandmother passed this down to me". And I have no idea where you're getting archaeology from. There is a theory that some of it may have survived, but it is generally considered incredibly unlikely and rejected.
The age of a religion has nothing to do with its truth. You make a new religion everytime you decide to not blindly follow whatever religion. I don't blindly follow Wicca. I'm only applying it to my own beliefs. Wicca describes my religion, not the other way around.
Morals are quite a bit different from religion, you should realize that.You don't listen to yourself, you listen to the gods.I'd argue that that's impossible. You cannot be raised and not be told what's right and wrong. By all accounts (I've seen) children are possessive and inherently greedy. Their parents are always telling them to share, to be nice, etc. If not by their parents, their teachers, judges, police... If you truly think that you can listen to "your personal god" through your whole life without being told by someone at some point what is the right thing to do, you are deluding yourself.
A holy book is just more indoctrinated organized religion. You shouldn't need a "prophet" to tell you what to believe. Think for yourself. I'm not against believing in the books, I'm against blind belief without question.
ITT People insist religion should be acquired through osmosis.I'm not saying you should randomly spring up with a religion on your own. I'm saying you look at your own beliefs, THEN find a religion that fits, THEN read into it.
Learn about religion by reading holy books and the words of people in your religion. Filter those teachings through your moral compass. Don't take anything at face value, but don't discredit teachings just because they were written by people (hint, everything you will ever learn about your religion was taught to you by a human). This is where critical thinking becomes important. Throw out the bathwater, but take the time to find the baby first.
But why is indoctrinated organised religion wrong automatically?Why is brainwashing wrong? It's a bit extreme to call it brainwashing, but it's the same basic principles. People should have the freedom to think for themselves. You don't get that in indoctrinated religion.
Post by: Shade-o on December 28, 2010, 08:36:01 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 08:39:42 am
But what makes organised religion automatically wrong? Are the beliefs that it encompasses invalid simply by virtue of being popular?It's not the organized religion that's wrong, it's people's blind belief in it.
Edit: You have to realize the conflicted position I hold. Because I believe in something other than what every organized religion out there believes in, of course I'm going to think they're wrong. But organized religion as a whole is what's really wrong. I'm fine with, for example, Christianity, but indoctrination of it or any other religion is wrong.
Post by: Shade-o on December 28, 2010, 08:46:27 am
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 08:52:21 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 09:20:15 am
But if blind belief in an organised religion brings somebody to peace and happiness, including an understanding of the universe and their place in it, how is it worse than alternatives which give the same results?Hmm, now this one got me thinking, good job :P
Well, first of all, my beliefs are not strictly "traditional" Wiccan. My religious beliefs, for the most part, are, but many things are not. I would say that they are going about happiness the wrong way. Ultimately, they're on the wrong path. Temporary happiness, as it may be. Life and death is a cycle; reincarnation, a journey. That journey leads you to a better understanding of yourself and the universe. Blind belief does not do this. It leads to you going through life with no real understanding of why you really are. It may give you a reason why you exist, and even why you follow the religion, but it's the wrong answer to the wrong question. It is not a question of why you are following X religion, it's a question of why you are following the general path you are on. That includes everything from religion, politics, even down to simple things like choosing to get out of bed each morning. You have to understand why you want answers before you can get any.
It is the difference between blindly following a path through life, ignoring all others, and actively choosing your own. Blind belief is going to end up with you following the wrong beliefs. You may even end up at the right end, but it's about the journey, not the destination. Most likely you are just going to end up passing by it. Choose your own path, and you'll ultimately be happier for it. If you end up on the wrong one, then it is most likely a life lesson you should learn, or something apporximately equivalent to it. It is NOT the same results that are given from alternatives, simply because this is a journey for you, not your body.
I find it very difficult to really express what I feel about this. In a nutshell, blind happiness leads to you forgetting everything around you.
Oh yeah, my wiccan phase. Totally forgot about that. 'twas fun until the sacrifices.There's no sacrifices in Wicca, what are you talking about? Even if there were, you don't have to blindly follow everything.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 09:40:42 am
There are sacrifices in everything... maybe not ritual sacrifices, but there are sacrifices.Oh yeah, my wiccan phase. Totally forgot about that. 'twas fun until the sacrifices.There's no sacrifices in Wicca, what are you talking about? Even if there were, you don't have to blindly follow everything.
Also, morals are very much tied to what religion you choose. If you have a set of morals that believe that you should cull the weak in society, you will obviously choose a religion that supports that idea. You are taught a set of morals by your parents and even if you think you are choosing your religion on your own free will, you are still choosing one which is based on your experiences with your parents growing up.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 28, 2010, 09:46:31 am
But if blind belief in an organised religion brings somebody to peace and happiness, including an understanding of the universe and their place in it, how is it worse than alternatives which give the same results?Because I've never seen an organised religion bring someone freedom of thought, reason, skepicism, or scientific enquiry. The problem with that is that those four concepts are the basis of our world's collective rise out of the Dark Ages. We must never fall back into that cycle of stagnation and death. You can't just have people give you the answers to everything in your life if you expect to develop and progress our collective knowlage. It doesn't matter if that makes you happy or gives you the beleif that you have Special Snowflake status in our universe. Everyone must find their own path, not step in the same prints of those before them. In short: the alternatives don't give the same results. In organized religion, you end up being a Believer before you're an independent person. In disorganized religion and non-religion, you're an independent person before everything else.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 09:54:50 am
I'm getting a bit tired of all these questions. It just feels like an interview now. Playing Mass Effect at the same time is not exactly helping either... But it's nice to do this, give some people some insight to my thought process, expand my horizons, all of that.There are sacrifices in everything... maybe not ritual sacrifices, but there are sacrifices.Oh yeah, my wiccan phase. Totally forgot about that. 'twas fun until the sacrifices.There's no sacrifices in Wicca, what are you talking about? Even if there were, you don't have to blindly follow everything.
Also, morals are very much tied to what religion you choose. If you have a set of morals that believe that you should cull the weak in society, you will obviously choose a religion that supports that idea. You are taught a set of morals by your parents and even if you think you are choosing your religion on your own free will, you are still choosing one which is based on your experiences with your parents growing up.
Anyway, yes, morals have some influence on that. Morals are mostly an issue of your own self though. However, it's not exactly difficult to "modify" a religion to fit your "needs", whether that's for good or bad. Just look at all the different subsets of Christianity and try to tell me that you can't pick and choose specifics in a religion. Your choice of religion shouldn't be an absolute subscription to everything it believes, it should serve as a convenient label. Wiccan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, they should all just be labels. Unfortunately, indoctrinated religion has led people to believe that a label means absolute belief in that religion, with no room for changes.
Everybody listen to this man. I took it on a spiritual note, he took it on a more scientific note, and we arrived at almost the same basic conclusion: you can't be given answers.
But if blind belief in an organised religion brings somebody to peace and happiness, including an understanding of the universe and their place in it, how is it worse than alternatives which give the same results?Because I've never seen an organised religion bring someone freedom of thought, reason, skepicism, or scientific enquiry. The problem with that is that those four concepts are the basis of our world's collective rise out of the Dark Ages. We must never fall back into that cycle of stagnation and death. You can't just have people give you the answers to everything in your life if you expect to develop and progress our collective knowlage. It doesn't matter if that makes you happy or gives you the beleif that you have Special Snowflake status in our universe. Everyone must find their own path, not step in the same prints of those before them. In short: the alternatives don't give the same results. In organized religion, you end up being a Believer before you're an independent person. In disorganized religion and non-religion, you're an independent person before everything else.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 10:07:36 am
I'm getting a bit tired of all these questions.Not questioning, just saying. Also, I agree with your views on indoctrination, but personally, I think if nobody was indoctrinated in any religion, religion would die off. (even Wicca)
Now, I could definitely accept a world without religion, but there are still people who will come up with their own ideas and they will continue to try to teach those to others so I think religion would eventually work it's way back into society through simple human ingenuity. Parents will go back to indoctrinating their children and the world will return to what it is. The only way to avoid that is to successfully answer each individual's questions in life in the most honest and educated way possible and let them know when conjecture is being conveyed. Unfortunately, parents are not good at telling their kids to behave without using Santa, God, Karma, or some other "magical" being or thought process. Sometimes it simply takes too long to explain to and develop them properly.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 10:09:25 am
If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.
Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is? What's even cooler is that this doesn't come from within the mind, but instead it's what the universe is telling us. It's not a vaguely human-centered universe, and it's not whispering into ears or causing an internal warmth to confirm. It is instead calling to us through evidence, over and over again, like a parent trying to teach their child how to eat food when they're stuck moving peas around with a plastic butterknife.
What I'm trying to say is that (a) happiness, peace, and so forth are bad reasons to believe something, and (b) the way things really work (with evidence to back it up) are so often insanely more amazing.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 10:36:19 am
Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is?Actually from what I understood of the reading I did... if we lived during the time of the "big bang" we'd never notice it because we'd still be relatively the same size as we are now and the universe would still seem insanely huge. But I generally disagree with the whole idea anyway and think the "evidence" isn't really evidence, but "convenient data." I've already discussed my disgruntled view on that so I'm not getting back into it again.
Post by: Glowcat on December 28, 2010, 10:37:30 am
it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"
If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.
That's still a type of Hedonism, specifically the qualitative form supported by John Stuart Mill.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 10:46:52 am
Is this a history class? I'm not going to suddenly go and read all of John Stuart Mill's opinions in order to comment on that, so I'm not sure what it adds. What do YOU think?it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"
If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.
That's still a type of Hedonism, specifically the qualitative form supported by John Stuart Mill.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 28, 2010, 10:47:57 am
But if blind belief in an organised religion brings somebody to peace and happiness, including an understanding of the universe and their place in it, how is it worse than alternatives which give the same results?
Because it would most likely be a fallacy. That is enough for me. Though, it really depends on the preferences of the person. Preferences which are, for the most part, determined by their individual's surroundings (which religion takes a part in).
Now, I could definitely accept a world without religion, but there are still people who will come up with their own ideas and they will continue to try to teach those to others so I think religion would eventually work it's way back into society through simple human ingenuity. Parents will go back to indoctrinating their children and the world will return to what it is. The only way to avoid that is to successfully answer each individual's questions in life in the most honest and educated way possible and let them know when conjecture is being conveyed. Unfortunately, parents are not good at telling their kids to behave without using Santa, God, Karma, or some other "magical" being or thought process. Sometimes it simply takes too long to explain to and develop them properly.
The average person is proportionally much more educated than they would have been 2000 years ago. The main religions (those with the most followers) are around 2000 years old. Seeing as education mostly trumps religion, I have a feeling that an educated society without religion would breed quite a smaller percentage of religious followers over time.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 10:51:36 am
I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is?Actually from what I understood of the reading I did... if we lived during the time of the "big bang" we'd never notice it because we'd still be relatively the same size as we are now and the universe would still seem insanely huge. But I generally disagree with the whole idea anyway and think the "evidence" isn't really evidence, but "convenient data." I've already discussed my disgruntled view on that so I'm not getting back into it again.
And the difference between "evidence" and "convenient data" is only a matter of perspective. We can theoretically prove the big bang theory false, and anyone who did so would be applauded tremendously. There is little motivation to keep it as it is, and I'm sure the alternative that better supports the evidence would be even cooler. It's not convenient anyways, as it disproves the previous theory of the steady state universe.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 10:54:56 am
it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"I agree with you there, actually (the big bang is an unknown, and unimportant to me though). But understanding how things work brings you happiness and peace. I don't believe what I do to get happiness or peace, I believe it to understand my self and the uni-/multiverse (whatever it is, unimportant). I'd pick a miserable Socrates over a happy housefly any day as well. My favorite saying relating religion and science is probably relevant here: "religion is the why, science is the how". You can be scientific and religious, they're not mutually exclusive.
If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.
Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is? What's even cooler is that this doesn't come from within the mind, but instead it's what the universe is telling us. It's not a vaguely human-centered universe, and it's not whispering into ears or causing an internal warmth to confirm. It is instead calling to us through evidence, over and over again, like a parent trying to teach their child how to eat food when they're stuck moving peas around with a plastic butterknife.
What I'm trying to say is that (a) happiness, peace, and so forth are bad reasons to believe something, and (b) the way things really work (with evidence to back it up) are so often insanely more amazing.
Just noticed this, the asari race of Mass Effect has some weird parallels to the Triple Goddess of Wicca. Maiden, matron and matriarch, interesting... and a bit strangely coincidental.
Post by: Glowcat on December 28, 2010, 10:56:33 am
Is this a history class? I'm not going to suddenly go and read all of John Stuart Mill's opinions in order to comment on that, so I'm not sure what it adds. What do YOU think?
Why the aggression? I was simply pointing out that "the goal of happiness" was more nuanced than simply pleasure. I gave out Stuart's name in case you wanted to investigate philosophical opinions on your own and see whether they helped expand your own beliefs.
I would say that qualitative Hedonism does well enough to describe my own views on a moral goal for humanity. Tied into that is a mission to increase our understanding of not only the universe but ourselves as well.
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 11:21:39 am
As to wiccan sacrifices, I meant that going through all the rituals just to inflict the possibility of pain on others was too much of a hassle for a 13-yr old ;) OTOH, I'm pretty well versed in it's customs, beliefs, and structures (or lack thereof), and it can be adhered to either pretty relaxed and benign or strict and zealous, just like any other religion...
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 28, 2010, 11:28:53 am
Screw happiness. It's all about survival. Knowing your shit (aka Science) helps tremendously in surviving. On the other hand, having a close-knit group that stands up for eachother (this is where religion comes in), helps tremendously as well. The Enlightenment gave us Humanism to supplant the religion-based social coherence, but I'm indoctrinated with Humanism so my opinion does not count :PInflict pain on people? What happened to the Wiccan Rede? :P
As to wiccan sacrifices, I meant that going through all the rituals just to inflict the possibility of pain on others was too much of a hassle for a 13-yr old ;) OTOH, I'm pretty well versed in it's customs, beliefs, and structures (or lack thereof), and it can be adhered to either pretty relaxed and benign or strict and zealous, just like any other religion...
So it was mostly just a matter of "this is a waste of my time" then?
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 11:48:29 am
Inflict pain on people? What happened to the Wiccan Rede? :PI was 13 (schmonsequences), and perfectly aware that it was just "an advice". An older wiccan woman who "taught" me on what passed for the internet in those days was strongly opposing my abuse of her religion/magic. I gave up because it was too much trouble for something I could do by hand anyway :D
So it was mostly just a matter of "this is a waste of my time" then?
Not a waste of time, I've been looking into stuff like wiccanism and many other schools of thought, old and new, for a long while now. Each one teaches me something new, and allows me to see more of "that other guy". Even though I don't have to agree with someone else, at least I can understand their point of view. And that skill/knowledge has benefited me greatly later in life.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 01:32:41 pm
Screw happiness. It's all about survival. Knowing your shit (aka Science) helps tremendously in surviving. On the other hand, having a close-knit group that stands up for eachother (this is where religion comes in), helps tremendously as well. The Enlightenment gave us Humanism to supplant the religion-based social coherence, but I'm indoctrinated with Humanism so my opinion does not count :P
I love this!
Someone once asked me what the purpose to life is. I told him something along the lines of "It's a bad question". I then ended up in a fight with my wife, who told me thought I told him there was no meaning. Upon reflection he was probably trying to shut me up, since I was explaining Schrödinger's cat at the time
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 01:51:10 pm
I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?Without getting into too much detail, the idea is that the space between universes is "stretching" and anything within that space stretches with it (light, etc.) They say it's expanding because that's easier to understand for most people but all the explanations I read on it say it's not expanding as much as it's warping and stretching and any attempt to measure distances between galaxies would end up the same because the light traveling through the void between galaxies is changed because of the "expansion." There's convenient "handwaving" that says you can't accurately measure the distances between galaxies because of this effect. (The common example is laying a tape measure between galaxies... it would always read the same distance, but if you pulled in the tape [and miraculously bypassing this effect] the tape would be longer than when you put it out there originally.) The general consensus is that we are not "visibly" moving apart, but the space between is is getting more distant. Add this to the idea that all objects are supposedly "moving" away from each other, there's supposedly no centerpoint where you can point to and say... that's where it started... so they conveniently ignore that question as "not important." By all current models, our galaxy is the center and everything is expanding away from us. (as they say all other galaxies see us, and the galaxies around them, expanding away from them.)
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 02:07:20 pm
I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?Without getting into too much detail, the idea is that the space between universes is "stretching" and anything within that space stretches with it (light, etc.) They say it's expanding because that's easier to understand for most people but all the explanations I read on it say it's not expanding as much as it's warping and stretching and any attempt to measure distances between galaxies would end up the same because the light traveling through the void between galaxies is changed because of the "expansion." There's convenient "handwaving" that says you can't accurately measure the distances between galaxies because of this effect. (The common example is laying a tape measure between galaxies... it would always read the same distance, but if you pulled in the tape [and miraculously bypassing this effect] the tape would be longer than when you put it out there originally.) The general consensus is that we are not "visibly" moving apart, but the space between is is getting more distant. Add this to the idea that all objects are supposedly "moving" away from each other, there's supposedly no centerpoint where you can point to and say... that's where it started... so they conveniently ignore that question as "not important." By all current models, our galaxy is the center and everything is expanding away from us. (as they say all other galaxies see us, and the galaxies around them, expanding away from them.)
Ah, I do remember something about this. Perhaps you know more than I do here, but I thought it was a little different than what you're describing. I thought everything was visibly moving apart because of expanding space. Thus if we crunched it back down, we would have the distinct impression of everything moving toward us still (until, you know, things collided with us). What you're describing though sounds more like a funky version of a steady state, as it wouldn't matter whether the universe was expanding or contracting, since we'd never know the difference. Is what I'm saying makign any sense? because now I'm not so sure. Maybe I need to ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson....
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 02:41:46 pm
I then ended up in a fight with my wife, who told me thought I told him there was no meaning. Upon reflection he was probably trying to shut me up, since I was explaining Schrödinger's cat at the time"There is no meaning" is actually a really constructive way of looking at life and the universe, as long as you realise that the fact that it's meaningless is also meaningless. Humans are meaningmaking machines, and we like to give meaning to Everything. That means you can pick and choose your own meaning for everything, if you can make that subconscious activity a conscious one (which is hard).
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 28, 2010, 03:03:39 pm
I thought everything was visibly moving apart because of expanding space. Thus if we crunched it back down, we would have the distinct impression of everything moving toward us still (until, you know, things collided with us). What you're describing though sounds more like a funky version of a steady state, as it wouldn't matter whether the universe was expanding or contracting, since we'd never know the difference.You're right. The theory states that the universe is (measurably, S=V/H; S-distance, V-velocity, mesurable via redshift, H-Hubble's constant) expanding due to the stretching of space between clusters of matter(i.e.galaxies), while the galaxies themselves are not stretching, due to gravity "holding" the local space together.
Quote from: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/ON_the_EXPANSION_of_the_UNIVERSE.pdf
Hubble’s law is consistent with a general expansion of the space between galaxies (or galactic clusters), and is not a particular characteristic of the galaxies (clusters) themselves. This statement means that the galaxies themselves are not changing in any way; only the regions between them are expanding with time. If the expansion is run backward (as can be done with mathematics), then it would appear that, very long ago, all the matter of the universe was once compacted into a relatively small volume from which it was hurled outward by some titanic force. This idea is the basis for the Big Bang.I believe Andir just got it wrong, as we would surely notice the difference in the size of the universe, should we get back to the beginning of time. The density would be much higher, eventually reaching infinity(at the singularity), yet despite this, the total "amount" of space could very well be infinite even then.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 03:17:26 pm
Ah, I do remember something about this. Perhaps you know more than I do here, but I thought it was a little different than what you're describing. I thought everything was visibly moving apart because of expanding space. Thus if we crunched it back down, we would have the distinct impression of everything moving toward us still (until, you know, things collided with us). What you're describing though sounds more like a funky version of a steady state, as it wouldn't matter whether the universe was expanding or contracting, since we'd never know the difference. Is what I'm saying makign any sense? because now I'm not so sure. Maybe I need to ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson....With most of it, there's still debate and some unknowns. The current trend seems to be finding evidence that supports Einstein's formulas and debating against that is like moving the Earth.
That's the general idea, but question that and you get what I said... hand-waving. Nobody wants to commit to identifying the general direction of expansion and identifying where the center is. Even if all galaxies were expanding away from each other, you should be able to compare a specific set of galaxies and identify a focal point for all their expansion vectors. Everyone is firm in stating that it's happening, but they state it's not important/impossible to find the center. They all attribute the state it is now to the general location of things billions of years ago and credit the redshift to the expansion of space/time between us, but not within our galaxy or other factors. (ie: 10 billion years ago, the Milky Way was in the same relative space compared to Andromeda just like raisins in a loaf of dough.)Quote from: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/ON_the_EXPANSION_of_the_UNIVERSE.pdfHubble’s law is consistent with a general expansion of the space between galaxies (or galactic clusters), and is not a particular characteristic of the galaxies (clusters) themselves. This statement means that the galaxies themselves are not changing in any way; only the regions between them are expanding with time. If the expansion is run backward (as can be done with mathematics), then it would appear that, very long ago, all the matter of the universe was once compacted into a relatively small volume from which it was hurled outward by some titanic force. This idea is the basis for the Big Bang.I believe Andir just got it wrong, as we would surely notice the difference in the size of the universe, should we get back to the beginning of time. The density would be much higher, eventually reaching infinity(at the singularity), yet despite this, the total "amount" of space could very well be infinite even then.
Gah... I'm done discussing this. (again!)
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 28, 2010, 03:37:54 pm
Nobody is looking for the center of the universe, not because of some handwave-y evasiveness, and fear of challenging the current state of affairs, but only because it makes no sense to name one.
Nobody needs to commit to finding the direction of expansion, because it is known - it's always away from the observer(neglecting the non-expansion related local movement through space).
If you would plot all the expansion vectors back to their origin point, you'd always end up finding that point in the place from which you took the expansion measurements. In other words, you could say that the center of the universe is here, or in the Andromeda galaxy, or at the edge of the observable universe, or at any given point you choose. Since it's everywhere, it can't be specifically "somewhere".
When you take that old "expanding balloon" model, it makes just as little sense to name the center of the two-dimensional space of the balloon.
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 04:16:46 pm
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 04:43:40 pm
When you take that old "expanding balloon" model, it makes just as little sense to name the center of the two-dimensional space of the balloon.All balloons have a center. Expanding or not. If the universe started expanding from a finite point billions of years ago, that point should be identifiable. Period. If the balloon was a flat 2D plain, it has a center... that's the origin of it's expansion (aka, the center)
We were here >.< in 100 million years we are here >.< There was movement of some type. Correlating back from that point to a point where all galaxies resided in the same point would be the center (the beginning of that sentence.) That's the part that nobody wants to identify. They claim that it's impossible because of the expansion of space between us and I claim that's bunk. Even if we are a dot in a three dimensional cube and all the dots around us are moving apart, we can correlate several dots in that cube and identify what point the majority of them are moving away from. They will be moving away from the center at a different rate than they are moving away from us. There's no other way I can explain my position.
Here... draw a Cartesian coordinate on paper. Put eight dots all around the origin with a ninth dot being the origin. (should be {0,0}{0,1}{1,1}{1,0}{1,-1}... etc.) now put 16 dots around that ({0,2}{1,2}{2,2}{2,1}... etc.) If we are at point {1,1} and each and every dot moved away from each other at the same amount, the visible distance between {-2,1} and {-2,-1} would be further apart from our point of view. The distance between {2,1} and {2,2} would be smaller than that amount. We would also notice a difference in redshift from our point {1,1} and {2,2} than we would from {-2,-2} because... if all points were moving apart from each other, the distance would be three times as much between those points and the shift should be much greater. If you correlate a set of points all around us, you should be able to determine if we are on an edge, near the origin and/or where the origin is.
It's literally impossible to have something that's expanding and not have a point of origin for said expansion unless of course you do the hand-waviness (that you like to mock me for bringing up) and claim that the universe has always looked the way it does now except for the space between galaxies (which is stretchy!) Somehow they broke free of each other then, but cannot now and we have images of collisions of galaxies in every quadrant of space around us.
It's not "ignorance" (per say) from my part. I've asked the questions and I keep getting the excuses and the hand-waving. They keep saying we started at a finite point and nobody has made any attempt to identify it.
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 04:49:18 pm
If you're really worried about ignorance versus hand-waving, read the official story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 04:51:33 pm
Palazzo meant the surface of the balloon. According to the balloon-analogy the actual center of the universe lies within a 4th dimension. Draw dots on the balloon. Those are stars. Now inflate the balloon. Are the stars themselves actually moving? Not even, the ink does not move. Is there a "center star"? Nope. Are they moving apart? Definitely.I've already read that... I read the other link someone put up a while back and I read a stupid link about raisins in a ball of dough. Even in the expanding balloon surface scenario we would see a difference in distance from near and far systems. That difference would tell us where the balloon is expanding from.
If you're really worried about ignorance versus hand-waving, read the official story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Edit: let me put it this way. If you have a a bunch of balloons in a big flexible box and all of them are expanding let's call these balloons the space around galaxies and the expanding balloons all push away from each other (as they would.) If you look to the other side of that flexible box and measure the difference between two balloons at different times, then look to your side of the box and measure the distance it will be different because your balloon is pushing those around it, and those are push the ones around them... it's exponential and measurable. (Well, they claim it's not measureable...)
Post by: Phmcw on December 28, 2010, 05:10:51 pm
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 05:12:13 pm
No, no, no, for the expanding balloon methaphor, you live in a 2D world on the envelope of the balloon. You can't do 3D measurement.But you can do 2D measurement... distant galaxies will move further apart than near.
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 05:14:30 pm
And that's exactly what they're doing. As with the balloon: equally in all directions.No, no, no, for the expanding balloon methaphor, you live in a 2D world on the envelope of the balloon. You can't do 3D measurement.But you can do 2D measurement... distant galaxies will move further apart than near.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 05:26:30 pm
But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?And that's exactly what they're doing. As with the balloon: equally in all directions.No, no, no, for the expanding balloon methaphor, you live in a 2D world on the envelope of the balloon. You can't do 3D measurement.But you can do 2D measurement... distant galaxies will move further apart than near.
Post by: Bauglir on December 28, 2010, 05:29:46 pm
Where they came from doesn't exist within the universe we can perceive. Their velocities are all perpendicular to said universe. That's the problem. Point at something "above" you in a 4th spatial dimension. Also, put that shit on Youtube if you pull it off, I'm sure somebody would love to see it.But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?And that's exactly what they're doing. As with the balloon: equally in all directions.No, no, no, for the expanding balloon methaphor, you live in a 2D world on the envelope of the balloon. You can't do 3D measurement.But you can do 2D measurement... distant galaxies will move further apart than near.
Post by: Phmcw on December 28, 2010, 05:46:01 pm
But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?
Ok, I understand your concern. Actually they don't move by themselves, it's space that is getting bigger.
Post by: Siquo on December 28, 2010, 05:47:20 pm
But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?It will always show they're all "moving" away from us, at speeds proportional to their distance, equally in all directions, so to get back on topic, in that aspect the bible might be right calling the earth the center of the universe ;)
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 06:26:38 pm
Yeah, and now back to the circular thought that I mentioned before on how some people say it's not possible to measure because the space between expanding causes light passing through it to shift and this is where the original argument came from. (convenienthandwave)It's impossible to measure!(/convenienthandwave)But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?
Ok, I understand your concern. Actually they don't move by themselves, it's space that is getting bigger.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 28, 2010, 06:35:20 pm
Here... draw a Cartesian coordinate on paper. Put eight dots all around the origin with a ninth dot being the origin. (should be {0,0}{0,1}{1,1}{1,0}{1,-1}... etc.) now put 16 dots around that ({0,2}{1,2}{2,2}{2,1}... etc.) If we are at point {1,1} and each and every dot moved away from each other at the same amount, the visible distance between {-2,1} and {-2,-1} would be further apart from our point of view. The distance between {2,1} and {2,2} would be smaller than that amount.First of all, if you're an observer at point {1,1}, measuring the angular separation between objects on the sky(i.e. how far apart are e.g.{-2,1} and {-2,-1}), then it remains constant when you increase all the distances between points by an equal factor(for example, multiplying all coordinates by 2 does that). Also, the angular separation would be equal to that between points {2,1} and {2,2}, which is in both cases 45 arc degrees(π/4 radians).
As you can see, there's no point in measuring the tangential velocity of galaxies, if you're trying to find out about the expansion of the universe. All that you'll find is relatively small movements due to the gravitational attractions of each body's close neighbourhood.
Quote
We would also notice a difference in redshift from our point {1,1} and {2,2} than we would from {-2,-2} because... if all points were moving apart from each other, the distance would be three times as much between those points and the shift should be much greater. If you correlate a set of points all around us, you should be able to determine if we are on an edge, near the origin and/or where the origin is.See, I've got this strange feeling that one of us misses the other's point completely, as we both use the same argument to both attack and defend the theory in question.
So, yes, that's true, it's exactly what we see - the farther away is a galaxy from ourselves, the higher is it's redshift. Just as it's expected from the universe that is expanding in all directions. Now, if you'd look at all those redshifts, you'd inevitably notice that all points are moving away from you, which would suggest that you're at the center of the universe, according to your line of thought(as far as I understand). Choosing any one of the infinitely numerous points in the universe as your vantage point, and using the same line of reasoning as before, you must come to the conclusion that there are infinitely many centers of the universe.
Does this make any more sense now?
ninja pseudoedit:
But what are you talking about? What do you want to measure? The distance between galaxies? It is measurable, indirectly of course, by comparing their velocities(redshift) with the Hubble's constant(D=V/H).Yeah, and now back to the circular thought that I mentioned before on how some people say it's not possible to measure because the space between expanding causes light passing through it to shift and this is where the original argument came from. (convenienthandwave)It's impossible to measure!(/convenienthandwave)But nobody can take that data and determine, based on differences in movement, what direction the majority are heading and tangent from that a guess to where they all came from?
Ok, I understand your concern. Actually they don't move by themselves, it's space that is getting bigger.
Post by: Andir on December 28, 2010, 10:32:42 pm
Now, as far as the redshift thing... we should be able to take those 1000 galaxies and measure the shift, then through simple geometry determine what they are floating away from. If everything is expanding, everything is expanding away from their origin points and it should be as easy as tracing back all the galaxies to their origins.
If the expansion is real that is.
Sorry, last edit:
I'm going to draw this in a line, but it's no different in 3D space:
... <- here is the origin of the big bang...
. . . <- here are the galaxies now
. . . <- here are the galaxies in (say) 50 years
I think you can see from that... if we see all those galaxies going away from that point in the center, the one in the center must be either travelling toward us or away from us. We can then assume that the origin point should be in that direction.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 28, 2010, 10:45:55 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 28, 2010, 11:27:56 pm
If the expansion is real that is.No, sir, no. That it's not a matter of the expansion being real or not. Rather it's a matter of your less-than-perfect of comprehension of geometry.
If you look out and grab a set of 1000 galaxies in space... record their positions relative to a set of other stars, they should (in twenty/thirty/etc. years) be at a point that is further away from each other. All of them... with a VERY small margin of error.It is not so. If it were to happen like this, then you'd quickly end up with a part of the sky devoid of all galaxies, while the opposite part would be a one big cluster of galaxies. This is something you'd see if you were moving very fast through the otherwise static(or at least much slower than yourself) universe.
Needless to say, this is not what the observations show. The angular(a.k.a. tangential) component of galactic velocities is very small when compared to the radial velocities associated with the expansion(some hundreds of kilometers per second compared to up to the speed of light at the edges of the observable universe), as well as being "random", i.e. each galaxy is only moving across their bit of surrounding space as the gravitational influences guide them, not uniformly as it's to be expected when considering the expansion of all space.
Once again, the expansion of the universe does not produce any tangential velocities. Your example with the cartesian system shows that precisely.
Quote
Now, as far as the redshift thing... we should be able to take those 1000 galaxies and measure the shift, then through simple geometry determine what they are floating away from. If everything is expanding, everything is expanding away from their origin points and it should be as easy as tracing back all the galaxies to their origins.Indeed, it's what I'm trying to tell you - you can do that simple analysis for each and every point of the universe, and in each case you'll end up with the same result: the universe appears to have it's center exactly where you're standing.
Regarding your 1D analogy:
you, the observer, are the comma. Dots are the other galaxies you see. t=time. For convenience's sake, I'll draw only five objects, but of course, the number of dots on each side of the observer could be infinite(but observably limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe).
t1 some arbitrary moment in the past of the universe
. . , . .
Distance between each is x.
t2 some time later, the space has stretched by a factor of 2.
. . , . .
Distance from "," to the nearest "." is 2x. Distance to the next "." on each side is 4x.
t3 even later, the space streched by another factor of 2.
. . , . .
Distances are now -8x, -4x, 4x, 8x. The farther the observed point is, the faster it receeds from you. It appears that the center of the universe is where the comma is!
Now, who says you need to be stuck on the comma? Imagine teleporting to the rightmost dot(now marked as "I"). You see this:
t1 , . I . .
t2 , . I . .
t3 , . I . .
You observe exactly the same effect as you did standing on the comma. Where's the center of the universe then? The answer is, of course, nowhere. There never was a single point in space that was the origin of the "explosion" of matter, because that's not what the Big Bang was.
Going back to the balloon analogy, similarly you can't point to any single place on the surface of the balloon and say that the rest of it is expanding from there.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 08:09:28 am
We are not in that grouping. We are observing that grouping. If we observe a grouping of stars that does not move as fast as the others, that's likely a point along the vector of origin...
. <- we are here
. . . <- we observe three other stars here
If those stars separate (like they should in an expanding universe) and we are moving away from an origin point (let's say we were at one point in the position of the the middle one but the expansion moved us to where we are) the two outside stars will move at different vectors than the inside one (if it even appears to be moving at all... according to the redshift theory it will be moving away from us, but the other two will be moving even further than that because they will be moving away from that center) So you can extrapolate from that data that the center star is along our plane of movement from our origin. Thus, the origin of our point in space should lie along that vector in space. Now, if the center one if moving down and the two outside ones are moving downward as well (not just outward) you can assume that the point we used to be lies somewhere above that point. It's simple freaking geometry and there's nothing wrong with my understanding of it. (I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the whole condescending attitude. Please.)
Think of it like those silly flying through space screen savers... if you got rid of the lines between the two points and did that by hand you'd be able to tell what general direction you are heading in. Your point of origin is toward the origins of all the rest of those stars. I hate using this example because the stars in those programs don't move relative to each other like they should, but that's not the point. We should see some vector of movement in all the stars around us. That movement should point us to the positions we came from... even if everything is pushing away from each other, we are still being pushed away from another point, our point of origin so we should not see that we are in the center if there truly is expansion from a point of big bang origin.
Post by: Shade-o on December 29, 2010, 08:35:46 am
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 09:10:00 am
Post by: Shades on December 29, 2010, 09:17:52 am
I'm sure with enough information it can be calculated but it's certainly not simple geometry.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 09:38:53 am
Spoiler: for out of topicness (click to show/hide)
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 09:40:35 am
Andir don't forget that your not talking straight line vectors and a 3d graph here as 'absolution' motion will be effected by gravity,I know there won't be straight lines, but there should be a bias in the directions. If you take a large enough sample and most of those are going in X vector then that would conclude that the opposite of that is the origin.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 09:44:49 am
Andir, sorry for the attitude, but your insistence on misinterpreting the whole idea of expansion lends itself very easily to being a prick. I appologise. I could pull a Shrugging Khan here and say that I'm just stating the facts, but seeing how in some years from now I'm supposed to start teaching people, I should probably thank you for pointing out my arsehole'ry.No, I understand that the angles will be the same... but using your own images... D4 and D5 would show you your trajectory. The point between those lines would appear to not move while the points at the end of those lines would appear to be moving further away from it. If you have a bunch of points at the middle point that don't appear to be moving as much as the groups of points on the corners you can estimate that that direction is either the origin or the destination or your expansion. Make sense?Spoiler: for out of topicness (click to show/hide)
Edit: er... nevermind my last edit if you read it.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 09:53:31 am
But there is no other uniform motion on the large scale than the one associated with the redshift. All that you can find out by analysing the local movement of galaxies is where the center of gravity of any particular cluster lies. So the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way, because these two objects are gravitationally attracted to each other stong enough to outset the expanding space effect by far. Would you conclude that the center of the universe is somewhere between the two galaxies then?Andir don't forget that your not talking straight line vectors and a 3d graph here as 'absolution' motion will be effected by gravity,I know there won't be straight lines, but there should be a bias in the directions. If you take a large enough sample and most of those are going in X vector then that would conclude that the opposite of that is the origin.
No, I understand that the angles will be the same... but using your own images... D4 and D5 would show you your trajectory. The point between those lines would appear to not move while the points at the end of those lines would appear to be moving further away from it. If you have a bunch of points at the middle point that don't appear to be moving as much as the groups of points on the corners you can estimate that that direction is either the origin or the destination or your expansion. Make sense?But they wouldn't move in any other way than radially. Their position on the sky wouldn't change. I could draw more points and more lines on that picture, and they would all follow the same set of rules. Their movement would be proportional to their distance from you, and it'd look like they're receeding from you, regardless of which point you're standing at.
ninja edit:
Edit: Actually, by your own drawing, the lines D1 and D3 are too long... because they are not C*d1 and C*d3 (respective)What? Why not? Draw it within the cartesian coordinate system. They are proportional to the d1 and d3, as they should be.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 09:54:16 am
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 09:55:39 am
Yo can go on and on, but basically you don't understand the concept of expansion, and fail to visualize how it would apply to space.
Beside your proposition for an "experimental proof" are made without so much as an inch of research on actual astronomy.
I said that you should take a course on the matter if you are really interested and actually think yours ideas are worth two cent, and I rest my case.
But instead you choose to be offended, well go for it.
If you'd understand the theory, you would not search for a center of the expansion, which make no sense at all.
The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.
Actually, it's because the tough experiment he propose is a basic way to detect the effect of a big explosion and come from a flawed vision of what thee big bang is. If he understood that we are speaking about an expansion of space, he'd understand why it can' work ( technical impossibilities notwithstanding).
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:06:28 am
But there is no other uniform motion on the large scale than the one associated with the redshift. All that you can find out by analysing the local movement of galaxies is where the center of gravity of any particular cluster lies. So the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way, because these two objects are gravitationally attracted to each other stong enough to outset the expanding space effect by far. Would you conclude that the center of the universe is somewhere between the two galaxies then?The dataset is too small. You would need to observe the same effect in a large number of stars in the same direction not altering their location in the sky comparatively. (edit: and not having a drastically different redshift than the "corners")
But they wouldn't move in any other way than radially. Their position on the sky wouldn't change. I could draw more points and more lines on that picture, and they would all follow the same set of rules. Their movement would be proportional to their distance from you, and it'd look like they're receeding from you, regardless of which point you're standing at.But at different speeds away from you... if they were radial, the shifts would be the same, but then the whole idea that Andromeda sees the same radial expansion would mean that stars would collide due to all the galaxies expanding away from each other. It can't be radial expansion for every point within. Not if it stays consistent in the sky. If the expansion was radial, it would appear to shift in the sky depending on which star you were on. In order for that to work, everything would have to expand away from each other at different speeds and that should be measurable.
What? Why not? Draw it within the cartesian coordinate system. They are proportional to the d1 and d3, as they should be.Ignore that... it was me waking up.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:08:49 am
The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.If there is no point of origin, then we are not expanding and the big bang is false. The Big bang itself says we were once smaller and that means we are moving away from where we were.
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 10:13:03 am
Quote
It can't be radial expansion for every point within. Not if it stays consistent in the sky.That is exactly the point : space get bigger, blow like a cookie dough. But it's the space that get bigger, not the stars that move in the space (they do that too, but not away from each other, they just get the effect of whatever forces push on them).
Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:18:22 am
Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.I never disputed that that's the current model, what I'm saying is that it should be provable by measuring the difference in redshift between galaxies we are in origin line with and those that we are 45 degress of. (edit: and if it's not proven, then the current model is wrong.)
In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is. D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 10:21:55 am
Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.I never disputed that that's the current model, what I'm saying is that it should be provable by measuring the difference in redshift between galaxies we are in origin line with and those that we are 45 degress of. (edit: and if it's not proven, then the current model is wrong.)
In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is. D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)
But... no!
why would it. All space will increase from a certain percentage, the red shift will only depend from distance.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 10:22:27 am
No, not that we (if "we" is all matter and energy) were smaller, that we were closer together. Take a look at this image here.The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.If there is no point of origin, then we are not expanding and the big bang is false. The Big bang itself says we were once smaller and that means we are moving away from where we were.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If you want an extremely simple explanation of it, Simple Wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) is good. I also found this (http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/big_bang_big_bewilderment) series of images that explain it well.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 10:25:49 am
You yourself were once smaller. Can you point to any one cell in your body that is the center of you, from which you expanded?The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.If there is no point of origin, then we are not expanding and the big bang is false. The Big bang itself says we were once smaller and that means we are moving away from where we were.
I don't understand your "data set is too small" point. We've got data from galaxies as far as +10 billion light years away from us, nerly from the edge of the observable universe. What more data you can ask for?
They do move at different speeds. The farther something is, the higher the speed(there is more space to expand).But they wouldn't move in any other way than radially. Their position on the sky wouldn't change. I could draw more points and more lines on that picture, and they would all follow the same set of rules. Their movement would be proportional to their distance from you, and it'd look like they're receeding from you, regardless of which point you're standing at.But at different speeds away from you... if they were radial, the shifts would be the same, but then the whole idea that Andromeda sees the same radial expansion would mean that stars would collide due to all the galaxies expanding away from each other. It can't be radial expansion for every point within. Not if it stays consistent in the sky. If the expansion was radial, it would appear to shift in the sky depending on which star you were on. In order for that to work, everything would have to expand away from each other at different speeds and that should be measurable.
I completely fail to follow the conclusion of stars colliding.
And as I said, all you need to do to test that it works, and produce the results we postulated it should produce, is to play with the cartesian coordinate system.
In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is. D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)They are different. The point at the end of D1 is farther away than the one at the end of D2, so it got redshifted more(there was more space created between).
This is measurable, and it's exactly the basis of the expanding universe theory. It shows that everything is receeding away from you(the observer).
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 10:29:35 am
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:30:41 am
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 10:34:42 am
I should have said that this explanation was the closest you could get to current model while staying with more or less Newtonian physics.
Quote
This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.Yes, that it does. But how does this involve a center? imagine that you have galaxies until you loose them of sigh. How would kowing you were nearer to near galaxies help you to find a center?
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 10:36:53 am
Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy. We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one. If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky. This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.Okay, so you were closer to the yellow several years ago than the blue, now what does that have to do with a center?
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 10:37:16 am
Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy. We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one. If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky. This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.This fails to take account for all the galaxies that are not on the picture - i.e. the possibly infinite expanse of galaxies from which you can take the measurements. There is another galaxy that has got just as much redshift as the yellow one, only in the exactly opposite direction. Where is your point of origin now?
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 10:39:56 am
I did not insult you, just pointed that you obviously misunderstand the underlying theory.You know, this is a good point to get back on topic from.
Yo can go on and on, but basically you don't understand the concept of expansion, and fail to visualize how it would apply to space.
Beside your proposition for an "experimental proof" are made without so much as an inch of research on actual astronomy.
I said that you should take a course on the matter if you are really interested and actually think yours ideas are worth two cent, and I rest my case.
But instead you choose to be offended, well go for it.
If you'd understand the theory, you would not search for a center of the expansion, which make no sense at all.
Basically, this is the case with religion's appeal to the people who fail to understand the world as it's described by science. And it's getting harder and harder as the discoveries move into more esoteric fields. The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.
Now, there's a lot of atheists that are of the opinion that the continuing existence of religion is causing harm to the world. So I ask you this: what would you offer to the "masses" that would be consistent with the scientific outlook, and satisfying enough to make the religion obsolete?
Here is a somewhat relevant, and somewhat questionable, proposition:
http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali_on_Converting_Muslims_to_Christianity
It assumes that there are "better" and "worse" religious systems, and proposes to simply choose the most harmless as the officially sanctioned one.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:43:06 am
It gives us a vector of expansion... you can point to at least two points in the sky and say, "There is where we were or where we are going." instead of saying, "It doesn't matter." (Which is what people are saying now, and I think that's wrong for someone who truly believes to be seeking the true nature to say.) With a bit more observation, you can likely get a trajectory of those stars 90 degrees off that line and determine what direction we are heading.Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy. We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one. If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky. This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.This fails to take account for all the galaxies that are not on the picture - i.e. the possibly infinite expanse of galaxies from which you can take the measurements. There is another galaxy that has got just as much redshift as the yellow one, only in the exactly opposite direction. Where is your point of origin now?
The "center" being the origin of the big bang.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 10:45:36 am
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 10:47:59 am
Actually, it's the other way around. because that vector is us, we theorized that the universe is in global expansion.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:48:51 am
Man, but it always points exactly toward where you're standing, wherever you go to. You are the center of the universe! Unless you've got a really bad case of megalomania, you should see the ridiculousness of such a conclusion.You just said the yellow galaxy and another galaxy opposite that are the two most red shifted galaxies and that gave me two points to draw a vector on (that goes through me or damn close.) This gives me a line of our travel away from the origin of the big bang... and now you are going to tell me that you are taking that back? (I thought I was getting somewhere...)
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 10:53:53 am
You would be at the center, always, because it is a global expansion.But it's not radial, otherwise it cannot be radial everywhere because it would not retain it's same position in the night sky form every point. It has to be cubic expansion or the galaxies would collide with each other trying to expand away from some other point (in which case it would actually be pushed toward another galaxy.)
We should be able to draw three lines through our galaxy and divide up the sky by measuring the amount of redshift for galaxies that we think are relatively the same distance, measure that again later and the quadrant of the sky that shifts less should be one of the major axises for the expansion.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 10:56:32 am
But you can't, because there is no point of origin. You are attempting to find something that isn't there.You would be at the center, always, because it is a global expansion.But it's not radial, otherwise it cannot be radial everywhere because it would not retain it's same position in the night sky form every point. It has to be cubic expansion or the galaxies would collide with each other trying to expand away from some other point (in which case it would actually be pushed toward another galaxy.)
We should be able to draw three lines through our galaxy and divide up the sky by measuring the amount of redshift for galaxies that we think are relatively the same distance, measure that again later and the quadrant of the sky that shifts less should be one of the major axises for the expansion.
By the way, it's not a constant velocity, it's a constant acceleration, it's exponential, because the distance between everything multiplies by X every Y years.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 10:58:45 am
But I'm not. It's still the same.Man, but it always points exactly toward where you're standing, wherever you go to. You are the center of the universe! Unless you've got a really bad case of megalomania, you should see the ridiculousness of such a conclusion.You just said the yellow galaxy and another galaxy opposite that are the two most red shifted galaxies and that gave me two points to draw a vector on (that goes through me or damn close.) This gives me a line of our travel away from the origin of the big bang... and now you are going to tell me that you are taking that back? (I thought I was getting somewhere...)
It does go through you exactly. The one yellow galaxy is receeding from you, so the vector points from where you're standing towards it. The other galaxy does the same, but the vector has got the opposite direction. They begin where you are at. The big bang happened in your pants! Which is great, unless you meet another guy who measured the redshifts from his home, and he thinks that his balls are the origin of the universe. Instant fight guaranteed.
Radial means along the radius of the(sky) sphere. What other meaning you had in mind, I don't know.You would be at the center, always, because it is a global expansion.But it's not radial, otherwise it cannot be radial everywhere because it would not retain it's same position in the night sky form every point. It has to be cubic expansion or the galaxies would collide with each other trying to expand away from some other point (in which case it would actually be pushed toward another galaxy.)
We should be able to draw three lines through our galaxy and divide up the sky by measuring the amount of redshift for galaxies that we think are relatively the same distance, measure that again later and the quadrant of the sky that shifts less should be one of the major axises for the expansion.
The same distance produces the same redshift. It's the observational data.
edit:
But you can't, because there is no point of origin. You are attempting to find something that isn't there.I believe that we're trying to explain here why there isn't one.
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 11:05:44 am
Well, that was retarded from me. Actually that the first thing that Hubble have done when he discovered the red shift, just not formulated the same way. I don't know how I got past this.
Edit:Ha yes, it's was because you spoke about relative position, which is a very hard information to get. But as it's not actually required I should have known better.
If it was an explosion, like you cannot help but think, we would only go away from galaxy that are not aligned with the center of the explosion, like you said, and those who are past the center.
But that is not the case, if you point a telescope on a distant galaxy, you'd find a shift of the colors of the stars toward the red.
This is only consistent with the hypothesis that they are going away from us. The speed calculated of these star is proportional with the distance (hubble's law). So A) we are ring at the center of the "big bang" (actually that wouldn't work either, but let's keep it that way)
B) the space is inflating. The star doesn't move, they just stay where they are in a growing space.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 11:08:00 am
I know that. I'm saying that you can't do it, because we have done roughly the same experiment (same general idea of measuring redshift), and gotten these results.But you can't, because there is no point of origin. You are attempting to find something that isn't there.I believe that we're trying to explain here why there isn't one.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 29, 2010, 11:08:38 am
Man, but it always points exactly toward where you're standing, wherever you go to. You are the center of the universe! Unless you've got a really bad case of megalomania, you should see the ridiculousness of such a conclusion.You just said the yellow galaxy and another galaxy opposite that are the two most red shifted galaxies and that gave me two points to draw a vector on (that goes through me or damn close.) This gives me a line of our travel away from the origin of the big bang... and now you are going to tell me that you are taking that back? (I thought I was getting somewhere...)
Spinning in circles, which is what we all do if we are close to understanding something but not QUITE getting it. Keep at it, and when you figure it out it's like "holy... really?... that's cool"
Let's assume we were god for a moment, and we knew where all the stars were relative to ourself.
If there were 4 stars in the universe, it might look something like this:
. <- ourself
. . . . <- the stars
Now, you cold say that the CENTER of the universe is between the middle 2 stars (excluding us of course, sense we're only hypothetical). That is a completely fair statement to make. However, if we contract the stars it would look like this to us:
. . . .
The center of the stars are still between stars 2 and 3, that's still fair. the center is not where it was before though, as you can see we're contracting onto the first star. Indeed, if we were to contract it further...
....
they would get even closer to the first star. The first star is thus the origin. if we contract it all the way to the beginning, we would get
.
and thus we prove that the first star i the origin. But relativity says that's meaningless, because we could have the EXACT SAME experience if we contracted on any of the stars. why not this model?
. . . .
. . . .
....
.
or perhaps this one?
. . . .
. . . .
...
.
They're all equally valid.
Now combine that with limit of the speed of light, and relativity, and you'll get the crazy world where they're not only equally valid, but the actual center is the same for each perspective. All things are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and have been doing so for the last however many billion years, relative to us.
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 11:12:25 am
Quote
All things are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and have been doing so for the last however many billion years, relative to us.
hu? Why at the speed of light? They have traveled away from us at the rate of the expansion plus their speed, not the speed of light.
Your earlier point is valid.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 11:17:09 am
Not speed, velocity :PQuoteAll things are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and have been doing so for the last however many billion years, relative to us.
hu? Why at the speed of light? They have traveled away from us at the rate of the expansion plus their speed, not the speed of light.
Your earlier point is valid.
But they would get very close to the speed of light (and consequently get all sorts of relativity effects).
Post by: malimbar04 on December 29, 2010, 11:19:23 am
Oh, sorry. I was a bit fuzzy on teh second point, but I thought it was accurate. Nothing, and especially not galaxies, can travel faster than the speed of light. This is true no matter how fast you are going. For example, imagine 2 people with light-speed rockets traveling away from each other:QuoteAll things are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and have been doing so for the last however many billion years, relative to us.
hu? Why at the speed of light? They have traveled away from us at the rate of the expansion plus their speed, not the speed of light.
Your earlier point is valid.
A (woo!)<--- --->(woo!)B
From the perspective of A, B is traveling at the speed of light. From teh perspective of B, A is traveling at the speed of light. Which is crazy, because from the perspective of lonely C as such:
A (woo!)<--- (lonely C) --->(woo!)B
they're both traveling at the speed of light away from him.
So from A's perspective it looks like this:
A CB
But from B's perspective it looks like this:
AC B
Post by: Shades on December 29, 2010, 11:21:40 am
it's a constant acceleration
I thought there was some disagreement over if it was constant acceleration or a reducing (or even increasing) acceleration. I don't really know enough about the numbers to comment directly but just from what I have discussed with people was that it falls within a fairly wide margin of error.
I realise this is a side issue and doesn't change your point at all.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 11:24:02 am
It's not including gravity. Huge margin of error, but like you said, it's a side issue.it's a constant acceleration
I thought there was some disagreement over if it was constant acceleration or a reducing (or even increasing) acceleration. I don't really know enough about the numbers to comment directly but just from what I have discussed with people was that it falls within a fairly wide margin of error.
I realise this is a side issue and doesn't change your point at all.
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 11:26:09 am
Quote
All things are traveling away from us at the speed of light, and have been doing so for the last however many billion years, relative to us.
It's the "all things" that is wrong. Beside I'm not sure that we know hat happen when two bodies are so far away that they should most, relatively to each other, faster than the speed of light, as it's the space that expand, not the object that move by itself.
I didn't have any general relativity, so I don't know.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 11:27:44 am
Nothing, and especially not galaxies, can travel faster than the speed of light.Through space, certainly. But if the space itself is stretching, then the apparent velocity of the distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light, making them forever dissapear from our sight(and since no interaction can act faster than the speed of light, it's o.k. to say that they are dissapearing, or escaping, from our universe).
The speed limit(c) of the General Relativity applies only to the movement through space itself.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 29, 2010, 11:30:28 am
this is really freaking interesting.
Oh, and you guys are right that I misspoke. they're not all traveling the same rate, and that rate isn't exactly the speed of light (slightly less), but the concept holds still, right?
And what is the difference?Nothing, and especially not galaxies, can travel faster than the speed of light.Through space, certainly. But if the space itself is stretching, then the apparent velocity of the distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light, making them forever dissapear from our sight(and since no interaction can act faster than the speed of light, it's o.k. to say that they are dissapearing, or escaping, from our universe).
The speed limit(c) of the General Relativity applies only to the movement through space itself.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 11:35:15 am
It's basically the difference between how they appear to be moving, and they are actually moving. They're not actually moving, the space between them is stretching. At least not including gravity and other forces. It's essentially the basis for this entire argument.And what is the difference?Nothing, and especially not galaxies, can travel faster than the speed of light.Through space, certainly. But if the space itself is stretching, then the apparent velocity of the distant galaxies can exceed the speed of light, making them forever dissapear from our sight(and since no interaction can act faster than the speed of light, it's o.k. to say that they are dissapearing, or escaping, from our universe).
The speed limit(c) of the General Relativity applies only to the movement through space itself.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 11:42:47 am
I have no idea what you are talking about with people and balls Il Palazzo
If there's no point of origin, the big bang is false... I feel like I'm talking in circles here... If the whole universe was at one point smaller and we are expanding, there is a point where we were before and we are expanding into another point where we will be. That movement denotes an origin point where we were.... you collect enough data and you should be able to find a direction for which the universe is expanding from because we are being pushed away form galaxies that are being pushed away from other galaxies... the longer this goes, the more of a picture we get.
There are a few expansion concepts, some of which are just examples, but I'm putting them out here...
1. If we are only a small dot on a round plain of expansion (I'm not talking about 4 dimension, just three) like our galaxy was some human on the face of an expanding Earth and all humans are galaxies... we should be able to look at all the humans and see we are all moving away from some point and point toward the center of Earth and say it started there. (This is not what I imagine the big bang is saying... just an example)
2. If the universe is homogenous and all galaxies are expanding away from each other consistently and unmoving the "corners" of some imaginary box would be moving away from us faster than the faces. The "core" of the universe or the center or the origin or the beginning of expansion or whatever you want to call it would be at the point of least expansion because these would not be pushed as much as those on the edges. The galaxies would remain in the same parts of the sky but get further away. This is what I imagine the big bang is saying. This is what I'm trying to "prove" by measuring the differences in red shift.
3. There is a man pushing expanding marbles up into a cone where the marbles simply find room to fill and they move all over the sky because they are looking for space to expand into. This would mean that there is still a general direction of travel (toward the big part of the cone) but there would be galaxies pushing away from each other trying to find some space to fill.
4. Every galaxy is expanding away from each other at the same rate. This would cause some galaxies to have to adjust so they don't expand into other galaxies and they would move in the sky to show that movement. It would be like blowing bubbles in water... the bubbles would all flow out from the center point where you are blowing the bubbles, but they would flop into empty spaces like the cone example above trying to keep as close to the center point as possible. (Again, not what I think the big bang is.)
And now the conversation is back to the idea that we are not moving again... take the dough example... the dough is expanding, but at one point that now baked bread is bigger than the dough ball it started as. That movement of raisins is measurable.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 12:08:57 pm
Disregarding gravity, two points that are the same distance from us are always going to move at the same expansion rate. This experiment was done with the Hubble telescope. There are no differences in the redshift except from gravity itself.
There was no origin point. You are misinterpreting the Big Bang. There is really no example you could use for this except for the universe itself...
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 12:14:22 pm
As much as it's hated by all, let me break it down:
I never said anything about constant velocity. I never disputed acceleration. I'm saying that the yellow galaxy in that image should be moving away from us faster than the blue. If we could find a galaxy that we think is between the blue and the orange it should not be moving away from us as much as the yellow and it will not be moving away from us as fast as the blue or orange... that would be a vector of origin... a point we are expanding into, have expanded from or a point that is expanding parallel to us.We can measure this. As it was said many times before. All the distant galaxies are receeding away from our vantage point on Earth. There is no other component. We are the origin of the expansion.
Quote
If there's no point of origin, the big bang is false... I feel like I'm talking in circles here... If the whole universe was at one point smaller and we are expanding, there is a point where we were before and we are expanding into another point where we will be. That movement denotes an origin point where we were.... you collect enough data and you should be able to find a direction for which the universe is expanding from because we are being pushed away form galaxies that are being pushed away from other galaxies... the longer this goes, the more of a picture we get.The BB requires there being no point of origin. Therefore, if there isn't one, then it's something that validates the theory, not disproves it.
Quote
1. If we are only a small dot on a round plain of expansion (I'm not talking about 4 dimension, just three) like our galaxy was some human on the face of an expanding Earth and all humans are galaxies... we should be able to look at all the humans and see we are all moving away from some point and point toward the center of Earth and say it started there. (This is not what I imagine the big bang is saying... just an example)This is a bad example, because you're thinking of a third dimension while analysing an essentially two dimensional space(surface of the earth). If you'd place yourself in a position of being able only to perceive the surface itself, then you wouldn't be able to name any single point on that surface as being the origin of the expansion.
Quote
2. If the universe is homogenous and all galaxies are expanding away from each other consistently and unmoving the "corners" of some imaginary box would be moving away from us faster than the faces. The "core" of the universe or the center or the origin or the beginning of expansion or whatever you want to call it would be at the point of least expansion because these would not be pushed as much as those on the edges. The galaxies would remain in the same parts of the sky but get further away. This is what I imagine the big bang is saying. This is what I'm trying to "prove" by measuring the differences in red shift.That's true. The corners of any arbitrary cube of space are moving away faster(from the point in the middle)than the rest of it. What it appears to be showing, is that the central point of the cube is the origin of the expansion. But if you'll switch your observation point(move the cube) so that the once-corner is now at the center, the redshift measurements will still show that the center of the universe is at the center of the new cube. Does it mean that there are two centers then? In a way, yes. There are as many centers of the universe as there are points in space, which is just as meaningful as saying that there is no single center of the universe.
I don't get 3, I'm afraid.
Quote
4. Every galaxy is expanding away from each other at the same rate. This would cause some galaxies to have to adjust so they don't expand into other galaxies and they would move in the sky to show that movement. It would be like blowing bubbles in water... the bubbles would all flow out from the center point where you are blowing the bubbles, but they would flop into empty spaces like the cone example above trying to keep as close to the center point as possible. (Again, not what I think the big bang is.)The rate of expansion is constant in the sense that there is a constant factor by which each "bit" of space stretches. If there is more space in between any two objects than between some others, then the first pair receeds faster from each other than the second(more space is created).
There is no need for any adjustments. The space between any two galaxies is expanding, so if anything, they are all receeding from each other, no matter which galaxies you look at.
Quote
And now the conversation is back to the idea that we are not moving again... take the dough example... the dough is expanding, but at one point that now baked bread is bigger than the dough ball it started as. That movement of raisins is measurable.But if the dough is infinitely large, then there are infinitely many points that you could point to and call the center. Makes no sense.
Look, try thinking of BB in this way:
All the universe, all the matter and space, both possibly infinite, existed since the begining. The only thing that changed was the density of the universe - the amount of matter per unit of space(e.g. kg/m3 or hydrogen atom per light year cubed) was higher before than it is now. Still, the universe was just as "large" - that is, you could go in any one direction and never reach the end of it.
What the BB postulates, is that the density begun to fall rapidly, as the space begun to inflate, creating the effects that we can observe now - the redshifts and bacground radiation.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 01:32:35 pm
Now, define "corners" in our visible space.
We should find that one corner is moving away from us faster than the others. This is because we are expanding away from the origin, but the corner is expanding away from us at a rate of our expansion from origin plus it's expansion from us. Got it?
Imagine a Rubics (Rubiks?) Cube and we are in one of the corner cubes. If all the cubes are expanding and we look at the outside corner of our cube and it's moving away. from us faster than the inside corner, we know that the inside corner is the point we came from. We do not know which of these corners is the outside, but if we examine them all, we can come up with a ratio to determine our vector of expansion.
If you say that all galaxies are expanding away from us at the same rate, then we would be pushing our inner corner galaxies into the center. This would cause collisions with all the other cube's galaxies. So we get pushed further out and we push the galaxies further away from us on that outside corner. Because we can't push the galaxies into the center because that would be bad, we are being pushed out and so on... causing an increase in expansion distances the further you get from the origin of the expansion.
Post by: Shades on December 29, 2010, 01:41:15 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 01:47:09 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 29, 2010, 01:48:41 pm
We're tossing around analogies all over the place, let's try to keep to one. I'll use the Rubik's cube since that's the most recent one.
Pretend that your Rubik's cube is expanding. Why? because it's magical. It just continuously gets bigger. Where is the origin of the of the cube parts? They all are moving at a vector away from the center is one thing you could say. Alternatively, they are all moving away from each other. It doesn't really matter as to the origin of the expansion.
Imagine the stickers to be non-magical. Thus while the cube expands, the stickers do not expand, but still stay stuck to, say, the center of their sticker spots. That's what we see.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 02:05:17 pm
Right, so if the "corners" of that box are moving faster... we agree then?I didn't realise you were trying to contradict the observational data.
Now, define "corners" in our visible space.
We should find that one corner is moving away from us faster than the others. This is because we are expanding away from the origin, but the corner is expanding away from us at a rate of our expansion from origin plus it's expansion from us. Got it?
If we were indeed moving through space, away from the point of origin, as if we and all our neighbours were shot out in a giant explosion of matter, then we would indeed find out that some objects are moving away faster than the others, despite being at the same distance.
But since the observations prove beyond reasonable doubt that regardless of the direction you'll look at, every object moves away from us at exactly the same speed as any other equidistant object, and that there exist a constant factor that relates the distance and velocity(Hubble's Law - V=Hd), the model you're talking about does not fit the observations at all.
However, if you'll assume that the space itself is stretching, then the predictions of such a theory begin to fit the observations.
And that's exactly what the BB is about. It's not a theory that somebody made up out of the blue, and then refused to look at the holes in it, as you seem to suggest. It's the only theory so far that is consistent with the observations.
Imagine a Rubics (Rubiks?) Cube and we are in one of the corner cubes. If all the cubes are expanding and we look at the outside corner of our cube and it's moving away. from us faster than the inside corner, we know that the inside corner is the point we came from. We do not know which of these corners is the outside, but if we examine them all, we can come up with a ratio to determine our vector of expansion.We would not be pushing at anything. You, for some reason, refuse apply the principle of stretching space to ALL of it. For the galaxies to collide with the farther ones, there would have to be no expansion of space between the two objects that you're assuming will collide.
If you say that all galaxies are expanding away from us at the same rate, then we would be pushing our inner corner galaxies into the center. This would cause collisions with all the other cube's galaxies. So we get pushed further out and we push the galaxies further away from us on that outside corner. Because we can't push the galaxies into the center because that would be bad, we are being pushed out and so on... causing an increase in expansion distances the further you get from the origin of the expansion.
Post by: Bauglir on December 29, 2010, 02:08:05 pm
Post by: Dr_Pylons on December 29, 2010, 02:30:33 pm
I'm sure at least some of you have heard of Joseph Campbell. If you haven't, I suggest you read or watch The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers. It's a great read/watch, and helps to "unliteralize" the word in the books; seeing the metaphors helped me deal with any uncertainties I had about myself and spirituality, and helped me develop into a more well-rounded person. If nothing else, give it a try. It might help you out as it helped me out to understand myself, and really made me feel better about the universe. I know it sounds Oprah-y, but don't be afraid, it's not some new-age thing. It's as old as the universe, you could say :P. And, if it doesn't, no worries-- there are many ways to understand what man's place in the universe is. I just found my way to do so, and I'm a happier person because of it.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 03:29:47 pm
Imagine it as a sphere not a cube, and image that the visible 3d space you can see is the surface of that sphere. Now expand the sphere so everything is getting further apart and you probably have a better view of it than your trying with the cube.You can't have everything moving at the same speed away from every single point. If you did that, it would appear to be moving differently from other points. The fact of geometry if that the hypotenuse will "stretch" more than the adjacent and opposite sides of a triangle. This would mean that the galaxy at the hypotenuse point (opposite you) of any expansion will move further away from you than the point at the end of the adjacent line (opposite you.) If it stretches the same distance as the adjacent side and from the observation point of the adjacent point it will appear to have not moved as far. I consider the idea that all galaxies move apart at the same distance over the same period of time radial expansion. (ie: the distance between the origin and every radius of the sphere moves apart the same distance...) This would never work in the big bang, everything is moving away from everything else, universe unless you were in the center of a big explosion and you were watching things fly away from you consistently and then you'd end up with a big empty space and a huge sphere of galaxies far off in the distance... that's the Earth example I had earlier. If you were observing this type of expansion from a point in that sphere you'd notice everything flying off in one direction, away form the center of the sphere...
What I'm talking about is Cubic expansion (ie: where the adjacent and opposite sides are expanding at some value making the hypotenuse value expand at a much greater distance over time.) Cubic expansion is the only explanation that would keep all the galaxies in the relative same spot in our sky... and for that to happen, you have to have the corners of the cube expanding away from you faster than the faces.
If observational data says that all objects are moving away from us at the exact same speed all over the sky then it's messed up because if you relocated to one of the galaxies far off and looked at us, you'd see the galaxies moving horizontally across the sky away from us... even if they were moving away from that galaxy that we relocated to we'd see them moving away from that one. There would be horizontal movement in the sky and that doesn't make sense while also saying that none of the stars move apart from any relative position.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 03:33:33 pm
I don't know what you're trying to say about "cubic" vs "radial", but it better not have anything to do with Time Cube :P
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 03:34:39 pm
Post by: Bauglir on December 29, 2010, 03:37:46 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 03:55:28 pm
You're mixing up the 2D model of an expanding sphere and the 3D space that it's supposed to represent.
What you call "cubic" expansion is what we call "radial" expansion(radius is just the name of the position vector running between any two points. It does not necessarily imply a rigid surface of a sphere. What you call "radial" expansion is your misinterpretation of the expanding balloon model(you can't think in 3D there!).
Moving away at the same speed as the equally distant object does not mean that everything is moving away at the same speed.
But let's start from the begining:
We observed something about the universe - the farther an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. Since the observations show that the relationship between distance and velocity is linear, we can write an equation: V=Hd, where V is the relative velocity between us and the object, d is the distance between us, and H is some constant than determines how much faster are the distant objects moving away than the closer ones.
Also, there appears to be just as many galaxies in one direction as there is in any other.
Now, what can you deduce from this data?
edit: oh, right, and as people said earlier - the universe is expanding with the constant acceleration. When we talk about different objects moving at certain speeds, it does not imply that those speeds are constant - we are only perceiving their certain values at this particular moment in time.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 29, 2010, 04:02:19 pm
I normally wouldn't comment on something like this, but this is just something that helped me overcome my need to bash either side, "atheist" (which could technically still be Buddhist, Jain, Taoist, etc.) or any theistic philosophy or religion.
I'm sure at least some of you have heard of Joseph Campbell. If you haven't, I suggest you read or watch The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers. It's a great read/watch, and helps to "unliteralize" the word in the books; seeing the metaphors helped me deal with any uncertainties I had about myself and spirituality, and helped me develop into a more well-rounded person. If nothing else, give it a try. It might help you out as it helped me out to understand myself, and really made me feel better about the universe. I know it sounds Oprah-y, but don't be afraid, it's not some new-age thing. It's as old as the universe, you could say :P. And, if it doesn't, no worries-- there are many ways to understand what man's place in the universe is. I just found my way to do so, and I'm a happier person because of it.
Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book that's supposed to change my life off a recommendation. There is a little problem I have that there are an absurd amount of books that claim to do so, but few that actually do. Then, in the process of purchasing them, I support them financially. Then I feel dirty, while also being slightly more poor. Over new years my wife and I are going to Barnes and Noble though, so I'll see what it's like.
The idea of myths and metaphors helping people is something I'd like to know more about though. I personally love to use analogies when talking about something, and once in a while I'm even complemented on my analogies. However, we have to be careful because all analogies and metaphors fall apart at some point. Often, the failing isn't very easy to see, since we're flawed humans that like to fill in missing details.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 04:18:09 pm
Meh, what is happening is impossible to visualise. Thing don't move away at the same speed, they are moving away from each oher at a speed depending for the distance between them. If they are on light year away, they move at speed X from each other. If it's two ligh year, it's speed two x. Always radially.It makes more sense than what I was being told before (and reading... stupid dough model...if I'm a raisin, I can see the other raisins moving away at different speeds when we get cooked! The balloon model doesn't help either... in fact, I don't know if there is a good model for that explanation... a growing jellyfish?) but it still doesn't make me accept that all our mass and substance was once at a singular point in space and we will continue to expand until all the sky goes dark. That's a bit too "creationist" for me and I still like the "always been there" models (and yes, I believe they are possible because there's much about light that we cannot know simply because of the scale of our testing... so don't even start with me on the "but the night sky is dark... der!" explanation.)
The fact of the matter is that there is still much that is debated on the subject and still some unknowns (dark matter/energy, etc.) I guess my biggest complaint is the solid concrete barriers people put up and insist that the Big Bang is the only solution... that somehow they know the answer and it will never change and nobody shall speak of alternatives. There are things like Gravity which make sense to hold slightly tight because it doesn't have much against it (even though we still don't know what it is... just that it happens) but the Big Bang is not one of those things, IMHO. I think I'd accept it better if everyone called it "The Expansion" rather than the Big Bang. We know it's expanding, but we can't know what happened 10 billion years ago and nobody has nailed precisely what's causing the expansion except that theory that we were once a finite point in space and now we are growing, unwavering.
Can we accept that? Can I stop this topic?
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 04:26:15 pm
However, we have to be careful because all analogies and metaphors fall apart at some point. Often, the failing isn't very easy to see, since we're flawed humans that like to fill in missing details.Yes, not sure why, but all the analogies people made for the BB have failed me... as one example. ;) In fact, every single analogy that people use to try to explain astrophysics... fabric of space time, dough ball, balloons, silly drawings of growing pictures...
Post by: Bauglir on December 29, 2010, 04:28:42 pm
Just to be clear, don't keep arguing about this, people. Referring back to it to say something like, "Yeah, cool, glad we've moved past that", or something else is fine. Just don't keep bringing up arguments or counterpoints or whatever your preferred nomenclature is.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 04:33:22 pm
I did not insult you, just pointed that you obviously misunderstand the underlying theory.You know, this is a good point to get back on topic from.
Yo can go on and on, but basically you don't understand the concept of expansion, and fail to visualize how it would apply to space.
Beside your proposition for an "experimental proof" are made without so much as an inch of research on actual astronomy.
I said that you should take a course on the matter if you are really interested and actually think yours ideas are worth two cent, and I rest my case.
But instead you choose to be offended, well go for it.
If you'd understand the theory, you would not search for a center of the expansion, which make no sense at all.
Basically, this is the case with religion's appeal to the people who fail to understand the world as it's described by science. And it's getting harder and harder as the discoveries move into more esoteric fields. The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.
Now, there's a lot of atheists that are of the opinion that the continuing existence of religion is causing harm to the world. So I ask you this: what would you offer to the "masses" that would be consistent with the scientific outlook, and satisfying enough to make the religion obsolete?
Here is a somewhat relevant, and somewhat questionable, proposition:
http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali_on_Converting_Muslims_to_Christianity
It assumes that there are "better" and "worse" religious systems, and proposes to simply choose the most harmless as the officially sanctioned one.
Post by: Andir on December 29, 2010, 05:13:06 pm
Gah, whatever. Anybody wants to comment on that:It wasn't religion (I do not believe in a creator, etc.) more than it was a really bad explanation... a really bad set of explanations actually. Visual aids would help more than analogies that try to break from the 3D space of... well, space. It's hard to put forth those concepts in text. I'm actually interested in modelling it in a program to portray it better. I'm a programmer and I loved geometry and I've done 3D programming... so the ability to understand was there, but the examples were terrible. Not by your faults, but by the faults of everyone trying to "5th Grade" the material and I'm a detail oriented person. The condescension, if you will, was making me bullheaded and something in my head closed off that experience I had and I got defensive.The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.
Also, shows like "The Universe" on Discovery do this as well. They try to create artificial explanations with improper visuals.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 05:37:09 pm
The majority of the population doesn't even want to bother, but they do want to feel like they've got it all figured out. So they are going to turn to the most easily accessible product to satisfy their needs - religion.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 05:38:44 pm
Religion does not have to exclude the big bang. Nor does it have to particularly include it either. Agnostic creationism (as I call it) is the way to go for me :)
Post by: Phmcw on December 29, 2010, 05:43:21 pm
So it may be their mutual place now, but it certainly not like that for all person (look at all these creationists), and I don't see wh we should let this "why" to religion.
In my life, religion have no place at all, nor for anyone in my family. We don't know the "why" and we know that nobody else does.
That is not a problem.
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 29, 2010, 05:48:51 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 05:55:14 pm
I disagree with you Crown, religion has been relegated to the rank of "why" since we know that it screwed up on the "how".You can be perfectly happy with that too, if it's fine with you. I like to know why we're here. And religion was pretty much all we had back in the day before the big bang. You want to try convincing some ancient tribe that a giant explosion created the universe instead of some mystical force, you go ahead and get stoned to death for blasphemy :P
So it may be their mutual place now, but it certainly not like that for all person (look at all these creationists), and I don't see wh we should let this "why" to religion.
In my life, religion have no place at all, nor for anyone in my family. We don't know the "why" and we know that nobody else does.
That is not a problem.
Many aspects of religion were a temporary placeholder for science (rain the tears of X god, for example). Nowadays, religion shouldn't try to explain that. That kind of thinking is unnecessary and just gets in the way now. They kept us from questioning it, sure, but what other explanation was there? Besides, that was all in the past, it doesn't matter now.
And sorry, Il Palazzo, I don't follow anything that explains the "creation" of the world (I believe in a sort of form of Spinoza's god, also known as pantheism). The Earth arose completely by chance, through SCIENCE!! The universe arose however it did, whether that was mystical or not, it doesn't affect me now, and it never did or will.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 06:56:25 pm
And is Shrugging Khan still around? Cause I haven't seem him.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 06:58:18 pm
You guys scared me away when it got to the space crap.Oh, he's probably still around here somewhere. We've just been talking about the big bang, so there's no religion for him to argue against :P
And is Shrugging Khan still around? Cause I haven't seem him.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 07:06:09 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 07:08:38 pm
Wait till someone swings it back around to say... Islam. Then there's nothing to do but sit back and watch the bloodbath.But there are no Muslims on Bay 12 that I've seen... Shrugging Khan seems like the kind of person that needs an actual person to argue against, not just an idea. It's boring to try to argue about whether a religion is wrong or not if there's nobody here that believes in it, because everybody is going to agree it's wrong :P
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 07:09:57 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 29, 2010, 07:16:42 pm
You don't know the man very well do you?Nah, I've seen people like him plenty of times though. I don't think he's the kind of person who's going to rant about religion unless he knows somebody is going to argue it.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 11:42:27 pm
Anyway to pump some life back into this place.
In my opinion religion is next to impossible to prove that it's true. Because any atheist who begins praying to G-d would probably not be doing it to truly become a Christian. And will therefor probably not get results.
And I can't convince anyone because it's their word against mine. I say G-d has spoken to me in dreams. They disagree. It's a stalemate.
Any opinions on this?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 29, 2010, 11:44:41 pm
You disagree.
Its a stalemate.
Hurray.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 11:47:27 pm
And there will always be people who think they have damning evidence and it just prolongs the whole thing.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 29, 2010, 11:48:56 pm
The pointless arguing does.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 29, 2010, 11:50:50 pm
To be replaced with the word "Pointless-arguing" the Hyphen is optional depending on you're location and time period.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 30, 2010, 12:29:27 am
My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 12:33:06 am
This is the Twenty First Century. Religions point is no longer explaining the world and how it works. It's showing you who you are.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 30, 2010, 12:58:42 am
Calling Religion unscientific just seems so..... petty.
This is the Twenty First Century. Religions point is no longer explaining the world and how it works. It's showing you who you are.
It's quite obvious that most religious people completely block out most scientific evidence without giving it a second thought.
So calling it unscientific makes it petty? Or are you trying to change the word 'religion' to something that it isn't? /facepalm if we're going to start arguing more semantics.
Uhhh... So not being religious makes you a nobody? I don't understand what you're getting at.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 01:09:17 am
I don't even know.
Its just me saying something random and slightly rabid, someone responding in turn and repeated Ad Nauseum
Post by: CoughDrop on December 30, 2010, 01:16:19 am
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 30, 2010, 01:41:45 am
It is a mystery.
Post by: Norseman on December 30, 2010, 01:54:34 am
Anyway to pump some life back into this place.
In my opinion religion is next to impossible to prove that it's true. Because any atheist who begins praying to G-d would probably not be doing it to truly become a Christian. And will therefor probably not get results.
And I can't convince anyone because it's their word against mine. I say G-d has spoken to me in dreams. They disagree. It's a stalemate.
Any opinions on this?
I'm a Christian atheist. I think Jesus was an excellent role-model (and that's quite an understatement), and I do my best to keep his philosophy in mind. Unfortunately, I don't believe in God, or miracles, prayer, or heaven, or souls, or anything like that. I would like to believe that very much. I think it would make me a better person. There's plenty of good things that I don't do because I'm afraid of what will happen to me and my family if I do. It's an ongoing inner conflict, but what it comes down to is that, since I've only got one life to live, I want to cautiously do the best that I can with what I have available. If I believed in God, I wouldn't need to worry about giving up everything I own. I would say goodbye to everyone I know, and I would dedicate the rest of my life helping people, because I'd know that, even if I fail, it was worth trying. If you know you'll go to heaven if you just do good things, and if you know that God really does have a plan to fix everything, that changes the meaning of life completely.
When I read the passage about Jesus being taken away to be executed, and how his friend cut off the ear of one of the people that wanted to kill him, and when I read that Jesus put his ear back on, I honestly cried because I was so happy to see that. Most people aren't really that different. We all know that if someone wants to fight us, we won't take them seriously. Anyone trying to save our lives and help us is probably someone to pay attention to. That's what I'd like to see - help violent people and make them realize that we're their friends. Don't just perpetuate an endless cycle of violence and revenge.
I've got all of the motivation to be a Christian, but I just can't change my beliefs about God, or miracles, or anything else. So, my point is, even an atheist who wants to pray and wants to believe in God still cannot get results. And, as you've said, you can't convince anyone. It's impossible for anyone to genuinely believe it unless they've had some personal experience that leads them to believe it's true. At best, an argument about the existence of God could only show that some Gods are impossible. For example, we can demonstrate that the conventional Christian God which is all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing doesn't exist. However, if God were not all-knowing, maybe it's possible. If God were not all-powerful, maybe it's possible. We can only show that some ideas of God are false, but that still leaves the vast majority of deities in a situation where they can neither be proven nor disproven.
Post by: Dr_Pylons on December 30, 2010, 02:03:47 am
Unfortunately, I'm not going to buy a book that's supposed to change my life off a recommendation. There is a little problem I have that there are an absurd amount of books that claim to do so, but few that actually do. Then, in the process of purchasing them, I support them financially. Then I feel dirty, while also being slightly more poor. Over new years my wife and I are going to Barnes and Noble though, so I'll see what it's like.
The idea of myths and metaphors helping people is something I'd like to know more about though. I personally love to use analogies when talking about something, and once in a while I'm even complemented on my analogies. However, we have to be careful because all analogies and metaphors fall apart at some point. Often, the failing isn't very easy to see, since we're flawed humans that like to fill in missing details.
Then you should pick it up. It's not a self-help book. It's an interview of one of the world's foremost mythographers, and more of a short summation of the point of mythology and why it's important. It only helped me to understand the point of religion, so I no longer felt deceived by it, since I was raised Catholic and no longer felt attached to my faith. If you do find yourself in a bookstore, do at least pick it up and skim the first few pages and see if it interests you. If not, then no worries. It's just another door to understanding, the one that worked for me.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 02:04:19 am
Ooh, ooh! I have an idea! Let's generalize all religions!Calling Religion unscientific just seems so..... petty.
This is the Twenty First Century. Religions point is no longer explaining the world and how it works. It's showing you who you are.
It's quite obvious that most religious people completely block out most scientific evidence without giving it a second thought.
So calling it unscientific makes it petty? Or are you trying to change the word 'religion' to something that it isn't? /facepalm if we're going to start arguing more semantics.
And yes, arguing about religion is pretty damn pointless. But it's nice to get your thoughts out. And it's just fun :P
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 02:14:48 am
Over the thoughts we have gotten out.
This thread is so stupid.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 30, 2010, 02:34:50 am
This thread is so stupid.
Bingo.
Ooh, ooh! I have an idea! Let's generalize all religions!
I like your thinking.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 02:37:26 am
We must generalize everyone.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 30, 2010, 02:41:54 am
You do not go far enough brother.
We must generalize everyone.
Everyone but the self is wrong. The self is all knowing.
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 02:42:52 am
It is the only way.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 02:44:33 am
Everything is all-knowing.You do not go far enough brother.
We must generalize everyone.
Everyone but the self is wrong. The self is all knowing.
(See, it's funny, because I'm a pantheist :P)
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 07:44:14 am
I never really got Pantheism. It's so... naturalistic. But based on your previous statements, Crown, I think you're more a Panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism).
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 08:04:34 am
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 08:20:46 am
But then, can it know itself?Actually, I'm both, hehe. We need some terminology though.
I never really got Pantheism. It's so... naturalistic. But based on your previous statements, Crown, I think you're more a Panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism).
Pantheism: The universe and the god(s) are one and the same, indistinguishable. "God is the whole"
Panentheism: The universe is contained within the god(s), or the god(s) are simply beyond the universe. "The whole is in God"
Immanent: The god(s) are within the world. "God is in the whole"
Transcendent: The god(s) are beyond the world. "God is beyond the whole"
What I believe is a mixture of immanence and transcendence. Pantheism and panentheism. They're not mutually exclusive. You know how somebody was drawing parallels between my religion and Hinduism? That's because Hinduism is pantheistic and panentheistic as well. The gods are simultaneously within and beyond the universe, permeating it and surpassing it, immanent and transcendent.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2010, 08:44:51 am
My point was that a debate on this sort of thing will go on forever.I'd say it's surely a devil's proof. I mean, God could very easily end the debate at any time he chooses. But he doesn't.
And there will always be people who think they have damning evidence and it just prolongs the whole thing.
Totally off-topic linkdump: Arguments to use against your xenophobic neighbours about Islam:Eh, I had most of those debunked just by living in an area with quite a few Muslims. They aren't really very different from anyone else.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 09:01:11 am
Actually, I'm both, hehe. We need some terminology though.Well, there's a large difference between "everything" (Pantheism) and "almost everything" (Immanent). Panentheism is not immanence+transcendence, it's the combination of pantheism+transcendence. God is everything and beyond, as opposed to pantheism: God is everything. The combination of Immanence and Transcendence is possible as well, but Immanence is mutually exclusive with Pantheism (as "within" excludes "is everything", unless you mean "within up to and including everything" in which case it means everything).
P: Pantheism: The universe and the god(s) are one and the same, indistinguishable. "God is the whole"
E: Panentheism: The universe is contained within the god(s), or the god(s) are simply beyond the universe. "The whole is in God"
I: Immanent: The god(s) are within the world. "God is in the whole"
T: Transcendent: The god(s) are beyond the world. "God is beyond the whole"
What I believe is a mixture of immanence and transcendence. Pantheism and panentheism. They're not mutually exclusive. You know how somebody was drawing parallels between my religion and Hinduism? That's because Hinduism is pantheistic and panentheistic as well. The gods are simultaneously within and beyond the universe, permeating it and surpassing it, immanent and transcendent.
So we can do (I've labeled the terms in your quote)
E = P + T
P > I <- There's the difference
I + T != E
Now if you take hinduism, where every god is an aspect of the whole, then it becomes pan(en)theistic as soon as there's a god for every aspect of the whole, but I don't know hinduism that well.
Post by: malimbar04 on December 30, 2010, 09:23:32 am
It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.
My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.
Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 09:35:41 am
See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics :P
Tell me one god that has been disproved.It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.
My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.
Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.
And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one :P
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 30, 2010, 09:39:14 am
Totally off-topic linkdump: Arguments to use against your xenophobic neighbours about Islam:Man, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
Post by: malimbar04 on December 30, 2010, 10:30:51 am
What I believe is transcendence, immanence, pantheism, and panentheism, not panentheism by itself. I don't agree that pantheism and transcendence make panentheism, because then the universe would be transcending itself. Immanence is not that the gods are within the world, it's that they manifest throughout the entire world. It is not mutually exclusive with pantheism, and in fact, is the main part of it. Because of this, panentheism is more like transcendence and immanence combined. Perhaps the way I explained it just wasn't clear enough. When I say "within" the world, I mean manifesting in the world, or more accurately, manifesting in every portion of the world. You can always look up... articles on Wikipedia, or something if you really want to know more.If I understand it right, this could translate just as well to "meaningless". That is, unless you believe these gods actually do something?
Quote
See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics :PA god that has been disproved:Tell me one god that has been disproved.It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.
My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.
Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.
And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one :P
Zeus. There is no gigantic being living on any mountain (let alone one close to rome or greece). Lightning bolts also don't come from a source (like his, which are thrown), but are instead a reaction from both directions.
Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 10:33:55 am
Yes, I do believe they do something. I keep those things to myself, but yes :PWhat I believe is transcendence, immanence, pantheism, and panentheism, not panentheism by itself. I don't agree that pantheism and transcendence make panentheism, because then the universe would be transcending itself. Immanence is not that the gods are within the world, it's that they manifest throughout the entire world. It is not mutually exclusive with pantheism, and in fact, is the main part of it. Because of this, panentheism is more like transcendence and immanence combined. Perhaps the way I explained it just wasn't clear enough. When I say "within" the world, I mean manifesting in the world, or more accurately, manifesting in every portion of the world. You can always look up... articles on Wikipedia, or something if you really want to know more.If I understand it right, this could translate just as well to "meaningless". That is, unless you believe these gods actually do something?
I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god. You can disprove certain stories, but for all you know, they could be metaphors :PQuoteSee, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics :PA god that has been disproved:Tell me one god that has been disproved.It's not stalemate, at least not in the sense of our entire civilization. The religious have made a claim that their god exist. In the world of science, you must prove that claim before anyone else need give it observation. If you can prove in a observable way under lab conditions that god exists, your claim will be considered. If not, then not. That's all I ask of anyone making a claim, no matter what it is, the difference being that the religious have never met that claim.a small quibble, in science you can't prove it. However, you must define it, and then you must test it. If it is both defined and has passed all attempts to disprove it, then it stays on the shelf as a theory.
My personal thoughts are the matter is that they never have and never will because deep down they know it won't ever work, but that's personal only.
Every god that has been defined has been proven wrong except the most useless and lofty of gods.
And I think a disproved god would be more useless than an unproved lofty one :P
Zeus. There is no gigantic being living on any mountain (let alone one close to rome or greece). Lightning bolts also don't come from a source (like his, which are thrown), but are instead a reaction from both directions.
Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 10:39:34 am
Man, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.Yeah, this is a treasured corner of the internet for me :)
See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics :PAs usual :) But it's educating:
I looked up immanence, and now I get it. It's a broader term, and "immanence in the universe" == "pantheism", and that specificiation is implied with the use of the word, although you can use it for other "containers" as well. Or no... immanence is more... permeating the universe, whereas pantheism is "is" the universe. Come to think of it, they're all on different scales, so yeah, describing your faith as a combination of those is probably the best way.
Do I get a cookie now? :)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 30, 2010, 10:43:30 am
I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god.Disproving gods is, as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, impossible. When you're dealing with ultra-powerful non-apparent beings who's traits can be changed at will by those claiming they exist, then you may have very well reached a negative that truly cannot be proved instead of the normal meaning of the phrase.
Quote
You can disprove certain stories, but for all you know, they could be metaphors :PWe can disprove the vast majority of the stories, given how many have outright impossible/absurdly supernatural elements. As for the metaphor thing, no. I cannot stand the tactic of defending some elements of religion as fact and others as "just metaphorical", picked and chosen based off of personal preferance. It's almost as annoying to deal with as "Out of context!".
Post by: Glowcat on December 30, 2010, 10:44:41 am
Quote from: CrownOfFire
I'm just saying, you can't disprove any particular god.
You're ignoring that people hold very concrete and literal interpretations of religious stories. As malimbar says, those particular Gods are being disproven when the stories are. You cannot simply argue about 'X' without first defining the subject well. If the stories are simply metaphors then you should understand what they're metaphors of and what kind of being they signify.
I feel these debates over theism and the supernatural only exist because people never make enough effort to understand what it is they're discussing before leaping into the fray.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 10:57:49 am
Good job, you understand it now. You may have a cookie :PMan, the comments section makes me proud of the level of discussion we're maintaining.Yeah, this is a treasured corner of the internet for me :)See, now we're almost just arguing pure semantics :PAs usual :) But it's educating:
I looked up immanence, and now I get it. It's a broader term, and "immanence in the universe" == "pantheism", and that specificiation is implied with the use of the word, although you can use it for other "containers" as well. Or no... immanence is more... permeating the universe, whereas pantheism is "is" the universe. Come to think of it, they're all on different scales, so yeah, describing your faith as a combination of those is probably the best way.
Do I get a cookie now? :)
Clearly you people have never heard of joking ::)
But really, to take an analogy, Jesus. I think we can all accept he never walked on water, turned water into wine, died and was resurrected, or whatever else there was. But I'm sure that we can all accept he still existed as a person. Now replace "still existed" with "might exist", and you have the same situation with, say... Zeus. People like to stretch the truth and make their gods/religion seem better than it is. It doesn't mean that you've disproved the god itself, just the god as presented in those stories. But this is all so ridiculous to talk about. Seriously, we all know that Zeus doesn't exist, so why bother at all?
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 11:02:50 am
You're ignoring that people hold very concrete and literal interpretations of religious stories.Some people, yes. Most people, no. The most vocal of those two is the former, leading to these kinds of prejudices.
You can't disprove anything that's not clearly defined. Any attempt to clearly define a god can be smashed to pieces, and what is left over are gods that are loosely defined (survival of the least defined! ;) ).
There's a school of christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology) (eastern orthodox, mostly) that is very good at this. They state:
Quote
You cannot say that God exists. You cannot say that God does not exist. You can only say that it is not so that God does not exist.Keep in mind that this "wordplay" was invented by the same guys who invented the logic you want to perform on this. But they know that reducing the above to ¬¬G == G is not doing justice to the actual words, and you'd be in direct violation of the first statement.
Disprove this:
Quote
* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).I personally really like this way of thinking about God, as it amplifies the humility of humans vs God. To say you know what God is, is hubris in my book.
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.
Post by: Glowcat on December 30, 2010, 11:39:25 am
Disprove this:
Why? It's gibberish. We can't even begin a discussion if you're trying to define God by what it is not.
It's like saying "A + B = X, solve for X" and then "Also, X is not 4" as if that would somehow change the illegibility of the formula.
Quote
* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.
Quote
I personally really like this way of thinking about God, as it amplifies the humility of humans vs God. To say you know what God is, is hubris in my book.
It's this sort of nonsense that perpetuates a road to nowhere. If you don't know what the God thing is then you don't also contradict yourself by claiming certain properties. In previous posts you've stated that you were coming to new conclusions about what God is and yet now you roll out with this latest statement. Why do you hold onto an inconsistent philosophy that can't even begin to understand itself without contradiction?
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 12:00:18 pm
It's this sort of nonsense that perpetuates a road to nowhere. If you don't know what the God thing is then you don't also contradict yourself by claiming certain properties. In previous posts you've stated that you were coming to new conclusions about what God is and yet now you roll out with this latest statement. Why do you hold onto an inconsistent philosophy that can't even begin to understand itself without contradiction?Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool). I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different ;)
Before you go apeshit on contradictions, consider things like love, or hope. I believe that a certain person loves me, even though she's trying to make my life a living hell at times. Contradictory, yes, but still I believe it. (BTW, she's still 2.5 yrs old so I forgive her ;)) I believe that the world will be ok, eventually, despite all evidence that it won't. I believe in the goodness of man, despite all evidence to the contrary.
And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! :D
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)
Post by: Phmcw on December 30, 2010, 12:20:19 pm
Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool). I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different ;)I disagree on the fact that you got a road. When you believe in something, you have nothing. You picked a direction because you "feel" it's the road, but it's all.
Post by: Glowcat on December 30, 2010, 12:20:57 pm
Because contradictions are no reason not to believe in something, and at least I have a road. You don't. Give me one (hint: Science is not a road, it's a tool).
You do? Where is it? Going through the trees and over the color blue?
You are correct that Science is a tool but I come from a perspective of philosophical naturalism and a focus on objective truth. My philosophy is to put together reality as it can be observed. It doesn't need to make more assumptions than that.
Quote
I also stated before that my view of god changes by the minute at times, so yes, it's inconsistent. The "disprove this" was a joke, but I guess there's humourless atheists as well as theists, those groups are not all that different ;)
While you may have been joking you also expressed support for such ideas. Sorry if my argumentative approach was harsh but it seems that you're simply being evasive about your beliefs instead of letting them be scrutinized.
Quote
Before you go apeshit on contradictions, consider things like love, or hope. I believe that a certain person loves me, even though she's trying to make my life a living hell at times. Contradictory, yes, but still I believe it. (BTW, she's still 2.5 yrs old so I forgive her ;)) I believe that the world will be ok, eventually, despite all evidence that it won't. I believe in the goodness of man, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.
Quote
And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! :D
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)
As you pointed out earlier, science is a tool, not a philosophy. It's also a tool that is meant to discover apparent contradictions in the observable universe and sort them out, not cling onto them.
Post by: Andir on December 30, 2010, 12:56:53 pm
Picking a religion is like getting on a bus and letting the driver take you to where they want to drop you off.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 01:04:30 pm
My road takes me wherever I want to go, but it complies to the laws of nature (in that, it will not take me through a tree...)Which is why you pick your own religion :D
Picking a religion is like getting on a bus and letting the driver take you to where they want to drop you off.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2010, 03:10:41 pm
And why do I hold on to something inconsistent that changes all the time and can't even begin to understand itself? SCIENCE! :DThis is the most hilarious thing I've read all day, thanks.
(for those who didn't get the last remark: The body of knowledge discovered by Science is contradicting itself all the time (yes it does (really, just look at scientists arguing)), changing all the time, and can't explain itself)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 30, 2010, 03:21:12 pm
Another god that has been disproved:
The literal version of Yahweh. The earth is not 6000 years old. The Isrealites did not win every battle they prayed for. People do not randomly turn into pillars of salt. The earth is not flat. stars are not small dots stuck in a cloth that hangs above us. There is no HELL below us (since we live on a sphere, we have a pretty good idea what's below us). Hey, he even got bats wrong - they're not birds.
Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.
It is not said in the Bible how old the Earth is. We don't even know if it really was created in six literal days.
It was not randomly turning into salt.
Since when did the Bible say that the Earth was flat? You're part about the stars in inapplicable as there is no mention in Scripture. It never said Hell was inside the Earth. Because if that were true than you're earlier claim of Scripture saying the Earth is flat doesn't make sense.
And as for bats. Probably due to a mistranslation.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2010, 03:29:46 pm
The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but it does say that its stationary in space.
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 03:31:20 pm
You do? Where is it? Going through the trees and over the color blue?Deep, man.
Quote
You are correct that Science is a tool but I come from a perspective of philosophical naturalism and a focus on objective truth. My philosophy is to put together reality as it can be observed. It doesn't need to make more assumptions than that.Sure, that's a road. Highly contradictive and it has a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't make it bad.
Quote
While you may have been joking you also expressed support for such ideas. Sorry if my argumentative approach was harsh but it seems that you're simply being evasive about your beliefs instead of letting them be scrutinized.Scrutinise all you want, but an idea is just an idea, it's not me. If you'd like to attack me through my ideas... Well, as a famous philosopher once said: I pity the fool. 8)
Quote
As you pointed out earlier, science is a tool, not a philosophy. It's also a tool that is meant to discover apparent contradictions in the observable universe and sort them out, not cling onto them.Science is a philosophy, but you can't live by it. Not 100%, as conforming every aspect of your life to scientific rigor is really impractical. It's only useful as a tool in a few circumstances. It only creates contradictions, sorts them out, then creates more, and sometimes even creates contradictions that are unsolveable (yes, QM, I'm looking at you). However, there's hardly a scientific theory that is not contested one way or another. Sometimes more seriously than other times, but it's about contradicting. Without contradictions, and hypotheses challenging theories, it would never grow.
To me, the strength lies not in the testing, or empiricism, or logic. It lies in being about change. It's never done. It has been claimed numerous times in the past that "Science was almost done", and then we found out there was so much more. I think this is also the major argument against religion that I agree with: Most religions are "done". It's a body of knowledge resistant to growth. It just doesn't get any better, and anything that goes against it, is automatically wrong. I get.. claustrophobic for lack of a better word of such a static stance. Other people find comfort in the knowledge that they already know everything that's worth knowing. That's their way, and I respect that, but it's not mine.
So if I'm constantly contradicting myself it's only with the purpose of growing. Standing steadfast in your knowledge dooms you to ignorance, although there's a consolation prize: you won't know it ;)
Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.Please do not impose your rules on others, and we shall refrain from doing likewise. Also, if your god tells you not to use his name in vain, he explicitly tells YOU, not malimbar. That's between god and malimbar, and as an omnipotent being He probably doesn't need you to defend his good name.
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 03:32:07 pm
The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but it does say that its stationary in space.Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true. ;)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 30, 2010, 03:33:39 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2010, 03:35:25 pm
Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true. ;)Uh... care to explain? Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 30, 2010, 03:41:32 pm
Okay... In a nutshell, everything in space is moving away from us that isn't close enough to be affected by our galaxy's gravity. It's the big bang theory, and expansion of space, and we really don't need to go over this again. But basically, we appear to be not moving in relation to the distant galaxies (they are all moving directly away from us), and the nearby ones are only moving in whatever other direction because of gravity.Well, if you look at the redshift of distant galaxies, that appears to be true. ;)Uh... care to explain? Because that doesn't seem to make any sense.
Post by: Siquo on December 30, 2010, 03:45:47 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 30, 2010, 03:48:29 pm
Okay... In a nutshell, everything in space is moving away from us that isn't close enough to be affected by our galaxy's gravity. It's the big bang theory, and expansion of space, and we really don't need to go over this again. But basically, we appear to be not moving in relation to the distant galaxies (they are all moving directly away from us), and the nearby ones are only moving in whatever other direction because of gravity.I know that. But it's not remotely equivalent to "the earth doesn't move".
I mean, we don't even need to go above the level of the Solar System to see that it does.
Post by: Andir on December 30, 2010, 04:17:56 pm
_______ is a philosophy, but you can't live by it. Not 100%, ...I don't think anyone claimed to live by something 100%, but I don't believe religion is needed to live one's life. (Heck, there wouldn't be atheists...)
Post by: Glowcat on December 30, 2010, 04:37:45 pm
Deep, man.
Ok?
Quote
Sure, that's a road. Highly contradictive and it has a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't make it bad.
I see accusations with nothing to back them up. I said your position was contradictory because it simultaneously makes claims about a deity while saying that deity cannot be understood. You say my position is contradictory ... because?
Quote
Scrutinise all you want, but an idea is just an idea, it's not me. If you'd like to attack me through my ideas... Well, as a famous philosopher once said: I pity the fool. 8)
Why would I attack you through your ideas? I'm trying to get to the root of what you believe so that you think about it more.
Quote
Science is a philosophy, but you can't live by it. Not 100%, as conforming every aspect of your life to scientific rigor is really impractical. It's only useful as a tool in a few circumstances. It only creates contradictions, sorts them out, then creates more, and sometimes even creates contradictions that are unsolveable (yes, QM, I'm looking at you). However, there's hardly a scientific theory that is not contested one way or another. Sometimes more seriously than other times, but it's about contradicting. Without contradictions, and hypotheses challenging theories, it would never grow.
To me, the strength lies not in the testing, or empiricism, or logic. It lies in being about change. It's never done. It has been claimed numerous times in the past that "Science was almost done", and then we found out there was so much more. I think this is also the major argument against religion that I agree with: Most religions are "done". It's a body of knowledge resistant to growth. It just doesn't get any better, and anything that goes against it, is automatically wrong. I get.. claustrophobic for lack of a better word of such a static stance. Other people find comfort in the knowledge that they already know everything that's worth knowing. That's their way, and I respect that, but it's not mine.
Science most certainly is not a philosophy on its own. It's a method of observation and understanding the universe but it is not in itself a position. Value in science may be a philosophical position but the methodology itself isn't.
And I'm not seeing how contradictions on their own or changes push any understanding of.. anything. You don't discover things by creating contradictions or changing arbitrarily, you must actually find the contradictions, and then THINK about them. Without sorting a contradiction out you get, what exactly? Cognitive Dissonance? Because you certainly don't make any progress by saying "Look, this new thing contradicts our current understanding! Let's ignore the part where we find out why and what we did wrong and whether or not we can devise a more predictive model!"
Science doesn't contradict itself by doing its job. It may contradict previous findings, but that's how scientific knowledge grows. It's a strong methodology because it isn't afraid to admit when it's wrong.
Quote
So if I'm constantly contradicting myself it's only with the purpose of growing. Standing steadfast in your knowledge dooms you to ignorance, although there's a consolation prize: you won't know it ;)
See above. Contradictions are only opportunities for growth if they are explored and conquered as they arise. I'm not sure where your growth comes from if you're defending contradictions for their own sake.
Post by: Phmcw on December 30, 2010, 04:56:30 pm
But for the philosophical part... I was going to argue, but then I realized that it would be hard to avoid any fallacies.
Let's say that there is kind of a philosophy that come naturally from science, but that it isn't ... Ok now it's wordplay.... dammit, you can do science and only use what we call a philosophy like a method (much like I rebuke Christian claim using the bible, using theology as a mere tool).
As for god's name, he menaced me from trowing me to hell if I don't obey him. Imagine what you would think if, out of nowhere, alien comes and says " we are all powerful, we are wise, obey us and honor us for you're only ants to our eyes. Those who refuse will be tortured for all eternity." What would you do?
Submit, or grab your gun and shoot it in the face?
Post by: Realmfighter on December 30, 2010, 04:58:06 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on December 30, 2010, 05:27:54 pm
I assure you all of the previous is true if you follow the bible literally.
Malimbar, please do not write down G-d personal name. But back to this post.
It is not said in the Bible how old the Earth is. We don't even know if it really was created in six literal days.
It was not randomly turning into salt.
Since when did the Bible say that the Earth was flat? You're part about the stars in inapplicable as there is no mention in Scripture. It never said Hell was inside the Earth. Because if that were true than you're earlier claim of Scripture saying the Earth is flat doesn't make sense.
And as for bats. Probably due to a mistranslation.
The age is within the geneology of the various people, attached to the known dates that certain things happened.
Yahweh btw was always allowed to be said, just not spoken out loud. However, since I'm not of that religion, I see no problem with that either. It's also likely not his/her/it's name.
I don't have time to look everythign up now (got to go), but the rest is right there too in the old scriptures.
Post by: Sowelu on December 30, 2010, 09:17:56 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on December 30, 2010, 10:03:21 pm
Here's where she talks about it:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture03.html
The rest of the course is equally enlightening:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/class-sessions
Post by: malimbar04 on December 30, 2010, 11:28:31 pm
If one were to believe prof.Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Hayes), the universe as represented in Genesis is made of water, which got separated by a flat piece of land at the bottom, and a rigid dome of firmament above, with holes through which rain falls(and that's where the Flood came from as well) - almost verbatim copy of the world view of ancient Babylonians.
Here's where she talks about it:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture03.html
The rest of the course is equally enlightening:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/class-sessions
Seems I can always count on you to bring up the evidence (and links), thanks.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 31, 2010, 01:12:59 am
For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 31, 2010, 02:11:46 am
Ok, I am an atheist for one simple reason; it makes more sense than anything else.
For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.
Problems? (In my evolution?)
Could you elaborate?
Post by: Andir on December 31, 2010, 05:04:21 am
Maybe he's saying the problem (As in it's not perfectly executed, seemingly more random than not... ) is that a god that can't get evolution to work right (every time) probably doesn't deserve to be doing it. [That's a guess...]Ok, I am an atheist for one simple reason; it makes more sense than anything else.
For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.
Problems? (In my evolution?)
Could you elaborate?
Post by: Siquo on December 31, 2010, 06:23:15 am
I see accusations with nothing to back them up. I said your position was contradictory because it simultaneously makes claims about a deity while saying that deity cannot be understood. You say my position is contradictory ... because?Objective truth and observation rule eachother out, since no observation is without subjectivity.
Quote
Why would I attack you through your ideas? I'm trying to get to the root of what you believe so that you think about it more.That's good, and working, thanks :)
Quote
And I'm not seeing how contradictions on their own or changes push any understanding of.. anything. You don't discover things by creating contradictions or changing arbitrarily, you must actually find the contradictions, and then THINK about them. Without sorting a contradiction out you get, what exactly? Cognitive Dissonance? Because you certainly don't make any progress by saying "Look, this new thing contradicts our current understanding! Let's ignore the part where we find out why and what we did wrong and whether or not we can devise a more predictive model!"That's not how it works. You create a hypothesis (you "make up" the contradiction), and then you start testing for it. Scientists don't go experimenting at random and then accidentally discover shit. Well, sometimes they do, those eureka moments are famous, but very rare. It's all about dissonance and challenging the status quo. You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know. "Contradiction" is a wide term, here, including "refining" and "adding to".
Quote
See above. Contradictions are only opportunities for growth if they are explored and conquered as they arise. I'm not sure where your growth comes from if you're defending contradictions for their own sake.Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.
Post by: Glowcat on December 31, 2010, 07:16:10 am
Objective truth and observation rule each other out, since no observation is without subjectivity.
That is why we must coordinate our observations with that of others and analyze our observation with rigorous logical deduction. When I refer to Objective Truth I mean treating reality as if it were a real thing and piecing our observations together so that the whole makes as much coherent sense as possible.
Quote
That's not how it works. You create a hypothesis (you "make up" the contradiction), and then you start testing for it. Scientists don't go experimenting at random and then accidentally discover shit. Well, sometimes they do, those eureka moments are famous, but very rare. It's all about dissonance and challenging the status quo. You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know. "Contradiction" is a wide term, here, including "refining" and "adding to".
Eh? A hypothesis isn't a contradiction, it's a prediction about what will happen. i.e. If this happens, this should also happen. Current issues with scientific understanding do drive the search but, as you said, it isn't random. It is the contradiction or whatever it is that doesn't make sense which becomes the target of inquiry and what must be resolved. I was urging you to resolve the contradiction in your own philosophy (as I understood it).
It should also be considered that while scientific revelation may contradict earlier findings, it doesn't tend to completely flip previous findings on their head. Scientific advancement starts with blurred vision and slowly becomes more clear. The image itself may reveal new details as it becomes clearer but you won't see anything completely crazy like... The Earth suddenly becoming Flat again. At least not without some very good reasoning/observations to back it up.
Quote
Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.
The method by which you examine and sort your beliefs is essential to understanding yourself. I love the scientific method precisely because its (good) practitioners only consider findings reasonably accurate when they can support them but will still pursue ideas to the best extent of their current ability.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 31, 2010, 07:20:53 am
You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know.
If you only discover things by contradicting hypotheses with observational facts, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you believe that there is already a hypothesis to every conceivable question.
I know I don't have much say in the matter, but I think that the true problem here is that you are confusing theories with beliefs.
Post by: ECrownofFire on December 31, 2010, 07:30:40 am
Post by: Siquo on December 31, 2010, 07:35:55 am
Then you start testing your "answer" (which is what a hypothesis is, a hypothetical answer) to see if it holds up, then it becomes a real "answer" (or theory). There can be multiple valid theories as answers to the same question, and in the case of science the simplest one usually wins.
Now if I answer the same question differently with a different hypothesis, then I'm contradicting (Definition: not saying exactly the same as, contradiction doesn't mean exactly the opposite) the previous one, and we can test which is the better suited answer.
The method by which you examine and sort your beliefs is essential to understanding yourself. I love the scientific method precisely because its (good) practitioners only consider findings reasonably accurate when they can support them but will still pursue ideas to the best extent of their current ability.Yes, but if the method itself is rigid and unchangeable, how would I ever know it's the right one? The Scientific method wasn't built in a day, either, and may even not be complete yet. Sure, it's a good start, but to hold it up like some holy grail for finding the Truth™ just won't do, for me.
I think the best example of scientific refinement is the atomic model. Plum-pudding, Rutherford model, Bohr model, now the quantum model. They're all mostly the same thing, same basic idea. It's just gotten more and more refined over the years.Good one. Remember that most of these models persisted alongside eachother for a while until finally concensus was reached over which model was the best one. I call that a contradiction (see definition above).
Post by: Glowcat on December 31, 2010, 07:59:45 am
Yes, but if the method itself is rigid and unchangeable, how would I ever know it's the right one? The Scientific method wasn't built in a day, either, and may even not be complete yet. Sure, it's a good start, but to hold it up like some holy grail for finding the Truth™ just won't do, for me.
It doesn't find Truth, it finds truth.
The question is of course how does one discover anything about Absolute Truth when we are always limited by our senses and our logic depends upon the assumptions we make. We will never be able to realize whether we found The Truth or not, so I propose that we're better off instead focusing on the reality that we live in. To that end we must reduce the assumptions in our philosophies until the equation of metaphysics goes from "A + B = X" to "A + B = Reality". Once we've clearly established our goal it is possible to make progress towards understanding it.
The Scientific Method may not be the end all of ways to understand reality but so far it has proven remarkably successful. It would also gladly disprove itself if there were a more predictive method of understanding the universe as we could experience it.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 08:00:34 am
Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.And are you constantly searching for ways to test your hypotheses?
The point is, if you have no intention of ever finding which of your contradictory ideas are true, they're all... well, equally useless.
Post by: CoughDrop on December 31, 2010, 08:05:28 am
A hypothesis can be construed for every conceivable question, at least, I can't come up with an example that couldn't.
I was not arguing that a hypothesis can be constructed for every conceivable question, but that there are questions that one does not even know about. They can find the question before forming a hypothesis, thus making your "You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know." statement false.
Post by: Siquo on December 31, 2010, 08:39:01 am
It doesn't find Truth, it finds truth.All too true, I just can't help it that the basic assumptions that underlie something like science, are to me just as believable as the basic assumptions that underlie Religion X, which makes both of their truths equally valid. If you talk about predictions: Science yields better cars, religion yields better answers-to-life-questions and solace. There's a tool for every job, but you have to make sure you use the right one at the right time. Being able to predict the future doesn't make you any more "true", IMNSHO.
And are you constantly searching for ways to test your hypotheses?Sure I am, I just haven't found any good methods yet. ;)
The point is, if you have no intention of ever finding which of your contradictory ideas are true, they're all... well, equally useless.
I've got a few though. For instance I test ideas against my most basic assumptions, one of which is the long-term survival of the human species (or its descendants). From that, I gathered that "doing good" to other people is a "good" thing, since social structures and "being nice" to eachother strenghtens our chance of survival. I also learned (later on) that strife and "doing bad" is actually necessary to maintain a strong society, as a society without criminals is vulnerable to when someone does decide to perform criminal acts. It's just not up to me to perform that task, plenty of volunteers out there :)
How did/do I test my most basic assumptions? By denying them, and trying to do the opposite. When it feels so unnatural that I disgust myself doing it, I feel reasonably sure that it's still there, so they have mostly an emotional basis. This suits me fine, as most people act on emotional bases but just deny that it's so, and start making up all kinds of "reasons" about why their responses weren't emotional but rational. Neurological research has shown that justification of your actions after they are done happens all the time.
They can find the question before forming a hypothesis, thus making your "You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know." statement false.I was about to say you're right but after reading it again I realise that I have no idea what you mean.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 09:13:29 am
Being able to predict the future doesn't make you any more "true", IMNSHO.I disagree. A theory that perfectly predicts the future in some particular area is much more likely to be true. Apart from anything else, it gives itself a chance to be falsified if the predictions are incorrect.
For instance: Newtonian ideas of gravitation correctly predicting the location of the previously unknown planet Neptune.
Sure I am, I just haven't found any good methods yet. ;)That still means you end up with assumptions on assumptions. And how can you ever test ideas relating to God using this method?
I've got a few though. For instance I test ideas against my most basic assumptions, one of which is the long-term survival of the human species (or its descendants). From that, I gathered that "doing good" to other people is a "good" thing, since social structures and "being nice" to eachother strenghtens our chance of survival. I also learned (later on) that strife and "doing bad" is actually necessary to maintain a strong society, as a society without criminals is vulnerable to when someone does decide to perform criminal acts. It's just not up to me to perform that task, plenty of volunteers out there :)
How did/do I test my most basic assumptions? By denying them, and trying to do the opposite. When it feels so unnatural that I disgust myself doing it, I feel reasonably sure that it's still there, so they have mostly an emotional basis. This suits me fine, as most people act on emotional bases but just deny that it's so, and start making up all kinds of "reasons" about why their responses weren't emotional but rational. Neurological research has shown that justification of your actions after they are done happens all the time.
I'd say the neurological research is being somewhat misrepresented here. It just shows that we do more things subconsciously than we think. Doesn't have to link to emotions or lack of rationality at all (if I see 6+7 and automatically think "13", it doesn't mean I just made an emotional guess - my mind just worked through the logic without me having to consciously do so).
Post by: Siquo on December 31, 2010, 09:24:58 am
That still means you end up with assumptions on assumptions. And how can you ever test ideas relating to God using this method?Of course, we already established that it's impossible to say anything without assuming anything. And no, the method can't be used on many subjects, that's why it's incomplete.
Quote
I'd say the neurological research is being somewhat misrepresented here. It just shows that we do more things subconsciously than we think. Doesn't have to link to emotions or lack of rationality at all (if I see 6+7 and automatically think "13", it doesn't mean I just made an emotional guess - my mind just worked through the logic without me having to consciously do so).Ah, we mean the same. The subconscious communicates basically through "feelings" or "emotions". It's can also be a lot smarter than you are (when well-trained), and it can be a lot more stupid as well. If you train your subconscious to be rational, it can do just that. If I act a certain way, and it "feels wrong", I take that as a hint that I shouldn't be doing that. Which is kind of defeatist, come to think of it, because the subconscious is definitely trainable. See, you just made my one remaining method invalid, because my "testing ground" is trainable by my conscious, I can't use it as an indicator of what's right or wrong on the most basic level (I still can and do on a practical day-to-day basis).
;)
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 12:29:55 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on December 31, 2010, 08:35:16 pm
-Irreducable compllexity
-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years
-I'm sure there are others
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 08:39:33 pm
-Irreducable compllexity...Would be a problem if an example of it were shown...
-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years...I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim this (sources, please?). I mean, the fossil record would seem to say otherwise, wouldn't it?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 08:45:11 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 31, 2010, 08:46:00 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 08:49:25 pm
And I believe the score is Realmfighter one, me zero.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2010, 08:54:38 pm
Ok, problems with evolution:...is a psudoscientific argument. If you take out a single component of our systems, the system will most likely continue to function, just not as well or in the same manner. Complex systems are complex because they built up that complexity over time in response to changes in the system holder's enviorment.
-Irreducable compllexity
Quote
-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion yearsShow me. Four billion years is a really, really long time. I don't think any of us can even wrap our minds around just how long of a time that really is.
Quote
-I'm sure there are othersAnd they are all wrong. The Theory of Evolution has been around for about 150 years, and in that time, it's only gotten stronger. If any real evidence came out that rendered evolution false, it would be the biggest biological discovery we've ever made. You would know, I would know, everyone would know because of how large a discovery it would be. Whomever discovered it would be the single most acclaimed scientist in the entire world. But none of that has happened, because nothing disproving evolution has ever entered the scientific arena, and at this rate may never. Probably because, and this is a shocking one here, the theory of evolution is most likely accurate.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 08:56:47 pm
(Keep in mind that I realize that evolution is quite possible and Darwin was a Christian. It is possible to be Christian and in support of evolution.)
Post by: Realmfighter on December 31, 2010, 09:05:21 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2010, 09:11:15 pm
Darwin was a Christian.About that... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_religious_views)
Long story short, Darwin was an agnostic by his own admission. He also took issue in the concept of a omnipotent being when he found out about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumon_wasp) little horror of our world.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 09:18:53 pm
Except the problem with fossil record is that there is no single reliable method that gets an accurate time.You can just look at the order. Even if you don't have exact dates on them, it's pretty clear that creatures developed.
Not to mention we actually do have moderately reliable methods to date things that seem to give at least a good relative scale of when things happened.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 09:24:17 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 31, 2010, 09:26:28 pm
Wikipedia is the best you'll get.
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 09:26:53 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 09:28:04 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on December 31, 2010, 09:29:23 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on December 31, 2010, 09:30:09 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 31, 2010, 09:31:57 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on December 31, 2010, 09:52:52 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on December 31, 2010, 09:54:59 pm
Post by: Shade-o on December 31, 2010, 10:05:48 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What were we talking about?
Post by: Zrk2 on December 31, 2010, 10:09:05 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 31, 2010, 10:18:20 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on December 31, 2010, 10:32:30 pm
Actually, it's more of a series of essays than a book, but I still found it both informative and entertaining.
Post by: Zrk2 on December 31, 2010, 11:46:06 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 12:08:17 am
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2011, 01:11:47 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 02:03:20 am
And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.
And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 02:10:39 am
So you think that the world will be significantly better without religion? I'm gonna be investigating this.I'd just like to point out theistic evolution (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) here.
And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.
And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.
Also, funnily enough, Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept it more than Protestants :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 02:13:57 am
So you think that the world will be significantly better without religion? I'm gonna be investigating this.I didn't say that. I said that the world would be better without pseudoscience, and I'll say now that the world would be better without relgious extremism and theocracy. The negitive impact of moderate religion in a secular and democratic society is negligible.
Quote
And I wouldn't call Creationism a crack pot theory. But that's just me.It's about as crack pot as theories that the majority of people accept get. There isn't any evidence for it, and it attempts to pass itself off as science.
Quote
And I would like to clarify again that Creationism and the theory of Evolution are not incompatible.Yes they are. Creationism is defined as a pseudoscientific hypothesis claming the direct and instant creation of Earth and the life on it by a Prime Mover of some type (almost always the abrahamic god). Evolution is defined as the process through which life on Earth gradually came to where it is today. Creationism says it all was just created at once, making it incompatable.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 01, 2011, 02:17:30 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 02:25:25 am
Anyway, I don't believe in it, so I don't really care :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 02:30:16 am
Creationism that doesn't take Genesis completely literally is compatible.I should have specified that I meant Young Earth Creationism in my post, then. It's just so prevalent I assumed we were talking about it when mentioning Creationism.
Post by: Glowcat on January 01, 2011, 03:53:07 am
Ok, problems with evolution:
-Irreducable compllexity
-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years
-I'm sure there are others
There (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)
aren't (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/theres_plenty_of_time_for_evol.php)
problems (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/why_there_are_no_missing_links.php)
The entire Creationist/Evolutionary-ID movement is run on disinformation and by religious conservative groups trying to spread their fairy tales into science classrooms.
Less % Biologists disagree with the Theory of Evolution than there are Historians who deny the Holocaust. Maybe if more teachers would actually teach it correctly instead of contributing to the mass ignorance there wouldn't be the same trite arguments wheeled out ad nauseum.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 04:14:56 am
I think if the majority accepts it it is no longer a crack pot theory. And since when did anyone try to pass it off as science?
I assure you it does not say instant in the Scriptures. And I believe that the process of creation took thousands of years. And it was done by G-d. Sounds like creationism to me. I am quite religious. And yet I realize the merit that the theory of evolution has. It would appear to me that that would make them compatible.
Post by: Shade-o on January 01, 2011, 04:44:18 am
Post by: Glowcat on January 01, 2011, 05:27:09 am
I am quite religious. And yet I realize the merit that the theory of evolution has. It would appear to me that that would make them compatible.
Abrahamic religious belief is only compatible with the Theory of Evolution if it accepts a deity who set everything in motion long long before life even appeared on Earth. [Evolutionary] Intelligent Design is the incompatible idea touted by people such as Behe that evolution by natural selection is impossible and the only way things could have appeared as they were today was if God
Post by: Shades on January 01, 2011, 06:18:28 am
I think if the majority accepts it it is no longer a crack pot theory.
The majority have believed lots of crack pot theories over the years, and I wouldn't have said the majority accepts this on but that is a separate argument. Believe something is true doesn't make it so now matter how many agree, unless your doing economics.
And since when did anyone try to pass it off as science?
Since a number of people have tried to push to get it taught along side, or in place of, evolution.
I am quite religious. And yet I realize the merit that the theory of evolution has. It would appear to me that that would make them compatible.
Abrahamic religious belief is only compatible with the Theory of Evolution if it accepts a deity who set everything in motion long long before life even appeared on Earth. [Evolutionary] Intelligent Design is the incompatible idea touted by people such as Behe that evolution by natural selection is impossible and the only way things could have appeared as they were today was if Godfixed the motion of the planetsfixed the evolutionary development by intervening in the process.
About the only mix that works. Although I fail to see how anyone who understands evolution can't help but be impressed how powerful and elegant it all is, how everything flows so well from such a simple set of rules. Why would anyone want to think that someone mearly created this, it's so sad :(
Post by: Leafsnail on January 01, 2011, 07:19:51 am
Creationism that doesn't take Genesis completely literally is compatible.Then it isn't creationism. The generally accepted definition is "Someone who literally believes in the creation story". If you believe in God guiding evolution, that'd be Intelligent Design.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 07:25:40 am
Look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism). This person is right, Wikipedia says so :PCreationism that doesn't take Genesis completely literally is compatible.Then it isn't creationism. The generally accepted definition is "Someone who literally believes in the creation story". If you believe in God guiding evolution, that'd be Intelligent Design.
Quote
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 01, 2011, 07:31:40 am
Quote from: wordnetweb
the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"Pretty much all the definitions that say otherwise are wiki variants...
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 07:43:20 am
Wikipedia does agree with that, look at the second sentence. The first sentence is the literal meaning of creationism.Quote from: wordnetwebthe literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"Pretty much all the definitions that say otherwise are wiki variants...
Post by: malimbar04 on January 01, 2011, 07:27:48 pm
Irreducable complexity has been proven false in just about every case that it's brought up in, much like the whole "bananas are proof that God loves us" thing. Immune systems, for example, were a big example of a "created" system: There's one component that tags intruders, and another component that kills them. How could one function without the other? Well, they investigated it in a lot of other species that were less-complex, and discovered "Oh hey, here's one where the tagging system also attacks intruders, and here's one with no tagging system at all, just better detection". Not hard to get from point A to point C once you've tracked down point B.
Banana's are my favorite, because of just how little that person must understand bananas. Most banana's are not sweet and are too fat for the hand, showing color at a time irrelavent to it's yumminess. The version we eat commonly is a very specific breed which humans have created. We bred the banana to be what it is today.
And the "tab to open" is particularly funny, because that's the hard way to open a banana. The stem is very strong. Instead, open a banana from the bottom by pinching the skin. Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBJV56WUDng
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 07:56:15 pm
Plus, the modern dessert banana seems to be headed for extinction. They've had more and more problems growing it in recent years.Irreducable complexity has been proven false in just about every case that it's brought up in, much like the whole "bananas are proof that God loves us" thing. Immune systems, for example, were a big example of a "created" system: There's one component that tags intruders, and another component that kills them. How could one function without the other? Well, they investigated it in a lot of other species that were less-complex, and discovered "Oh hey, here's one where the tagging system also attacks intruders, and here's one with no tagging system at all, just better detection". Not hard to get from point A to point C once you've tracked down point B.
Banana's are my favorite, because of just how little that person must understand bananas. Most banana's are not sweet and are too fat for the hand, showing color at a time irrelavent to it's yumminess. The version we eat commonly is a very specific breed which humans have created. We bred the banana to be what it is today.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 01, 2011, 08:20:27 pm
Plus, the modern dessert banana seems to be headed for extinction. They've had more and more problems growing it in recent years.
Well it has the problem of being a pure culture. Every average-sized yellow banana you eat is the exact same as every other one. If it goes extinct though for whatever reason, they have dozens of alternatives that are nearly as big, just as yellow, and just as sweet. Unless I'm mistaken, it's happened once before, where some parasite killed basically th entire crop of bananas in the world. Those bananas were even bigger I was told.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 08:55:34 pm
Actually, without genetic diversity, there are ZERO alternatives. That's the thing about having one type of crop, you get a parasite or something that kills it, say goodbye to everything you have of it. I think that this kind of thing even contributed to the Irish potato famine, so there's a long history to it (just an example that's really well-known, I'm sure there are others farther back).Plus, the modern dessert banana seems to be headed for extinction. They've had more and more problems growing it in recent years.
Well it has the problem of being a pure culture. Every average-sized yellow banana you eat is the exact same as every other one. If it goes extinct though for whatever reason, they have dozens of alternatives that are nearly as big, just as yellow, and just as sweet. Unless I'm mistaken, it's happened once before, where some parasite killed basically th entire crop of bananas in the world. Those bananas were even bigger I was told.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 01, 2011, 10:10:47 pm
God knows everything that will ever happen, but it's your fault if you live a life of sin, even though he knew what was going to happen before you were even born, and did nothing to stop it. (If he were real)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 10:15:21 pm
And by the way, you may be treading on thin ice there.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 10:21:56 pm
It's you're choice.It's "our choice" in the same way it's a shopkeeper's choice to pay a mafia boss protection money or be shot to death.
Quote
And by the way, you may be treading on thin ice there.Is that a threat? I'm honestly asking, I don't know what you mean.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 10:31:41 pm
According to the multiple universe theory, when you make a decision, the timeline/universe splits.
According to other theories, haven't looked into it, so I don't know.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 10:33:23 pm
And why would I threaten someone I don't even know? There's nothing I can do besides report you so why use threats?
*I'm making that comparison so that you will be in line with you're own belief.
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 10:35:15 pm
So tell me, in the spirt of not repeating what has already been said, have we differentiated religen from philosophy yet?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 10:36:55 pm
*Well I would tweak that comparison so that a Ghost will set you on fire if you don't swear allegiance.Err...what? And if you aren't going to refute my mafia comparison, are you admiting that your god is malevolent?
*I'm making that comparison so that you will be in line with you're own belief.
Quote
And why would I threaten someone I don't even know? There's nothing I can do besides report you so why use threats?Then what did you mean by:
And by the way, you may be treading on thin ice there.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 10:39:14 pm
And I meant that you could be offending people and by effect could get muted.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 10:44:41 pm
My point was that you're comparison is useless because you're an atheist.It is very useful indeed. You claim that we are all at fault for living our lives "in sin" when your god has set impossible goals to not do so. By extension, I would have to think that you are also in support of the argument that "god doesn't send people to hell, they send themselves". I have made the comparison between the actions of your god in setting a bar that no human can reach with a mafia boss extorting shopkeepers to show that your god is acting in a malevolent manner by doing so. I still don't know exactly why you brought ghosts into this.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 10:47:50 pm
He's saying that you think of his god holding as much validity as a ghost setting fire to you.My point was that you're comparison is useless because you're an atheist.It is very useful indeed. You claim that we are all at fault for living our lives "in sin" when your god has set impossible goals to not do so. By extension, I would have to think that you are also in support of the argument that "god doesn't send people to hell, they send themselves". I have made the comparison between the actions of your god in setting a bar that no human can reach with a mafia boss extorting shopkeepers to show that your god is acting in a malevolent manner by doing so. I still don't know exactly why you brought ghosts into this.
Which is probably true...
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 10:48:18 pm
I mean are you realy going to condem a rather large group of people for some moral lessons that are no longer applicable in todays society, when the moajrity havn't even read the bible?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 10:49:32 pm
Quick question: Can we just rip the bible in half and pretend that only the new testiment counts?That the moral lessons aren't applicable in modern society is exactly why many Christians reject many laws in the Old Testament.
I mean are you realy going to condem a rather large group of people for some moral lessons that are no longer applicable in todays society, when the moajrity havn't even read the bible?
And why would a non-Christian really want to read the bible?
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 10:51:00 pm
That the moral lessons aren't applicable in modern society is exactly why many Christians reject many laws in the Old Testament.
And why would a non-Christian really want to read the bible?
Know thou enermy? Be entertained? What else do you do in a motel? I don't know...
I read some of it, but I'm agnostic, heading towards athiest, but I value what christans do for society too much.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 10:54:41 pm
It is true. Doesn't change a word I have typed.He's saying that you think of his god holding as much validity as a ghost setting fire to you.My point was that you're comparison is useless because you're an atheist.It is very useful indeed. You claim that we are all at fault for living our lives "in sin" when your god has set impossible goals to not do so. By extension, I would have to think that you are also in support of the argument that "god doesn't send people to hell, they send themselves". I have made the comparison between the actions of your god in setting a bar that no human can reach with a mafia boss extorting shopkeepers to show that your god is acting in a malevolent manner by doing so. I still don't know exactly why you brought ghosts into this.
Which is probably true...
Quick question: Can we just rip the bible in half and pretend that only the new testiment counts?No. Jesus said that he came to fufill the old law, not to abolish it. Old Testament counts, no matter how much people want to shout that it doesn't.
Quote
I mean are you realy going to condem a rather large group of people for some moral lessons that are no longer applicable in todays society, when the moajrity havn't even read the bible?I'm certainly going to condemn them for being hypocrites who pick and choose from the parts of the Bible they like/are told to like while, yes, sometimes not reading it themselves. (Unless by "large group" you don't mean the christians themselves, in which case I don't know who you mean.)
I read some of it, but I'm agnostic, heading towards athiest, but I value what christans do for society too much.What does that have to do with anything? Christians are people like you and me, most of the things they do have absolutely nothing to do with being christians. They are no more valuble to society than atheists, or anyone else for that matter. Even so, what they do shouldn't stop you from making choices about the existance of gods.
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 10:59:36 pm
No. Jesus said that he came to fufill the old law, not to abolish it. Old Testament counts, no matter how much people want to shout that it doesn't.
Aww, your no fun. Fine, we play by 'full bible' rules. Can I atleast bring other religens into this? Buddisem is a realy good one, they don't have much hate and killing at all.
I'm certainly going to condemn them for being hypocrites who pick and choose from the parts of the Bible they like/are told to like while, yes, sometimes not reading it themselves. (Unless by "large group" you don't mean the christians themselves, in which case I don't know who you mean.)
Am I to bring from this that if somebody commited themself fully to every word in the bible, and stoned there son for death for swearing, you would atleast respect them for sticking to there word? Ok, interesting priortys, but I can play along.
What does that have to do with anything? Christians are people like you and me, most of the things they do have absolutely nothing to do with being christians. They are no more valuble to society than atheists, or anyone else for that matter. Even so, what they do shouldn't stop you from making choices about the existance of gods.
Well there are hundreds, maybe thousands of christan charitys out there. Are there anu athiest ones? No, don't go pointing out the agnotic ones, ones founded in the name of there not being a god.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 11:07:06 pm
Aww, your no fun. Fine, we play by 'full bible' rules. Can I atleast bring other religens into this? Buddisem is a realy good one, they don't have much hate and killing at all.I'm not sure what you want to bring it into. The debate?
Quote
Am I to bring from this that if somebody commited themself fully to every word in the bible, and stoned there son for death for swearing, you would atleast respect them for sticking to there word? Ok, interesting priortys, but I can play along.No. It isn't alright to be a hypocrite, however. I want Christians to own up to the existance of bad stuff in the Bible, not to follow it.
Quote
Well there are hundreds, maybe thousands of christan charitys out there. Are there anu athiest ones? No, don't go pointing out the agnotic ones, ones founded in the name of there not being a god.The idea of an expicitly atheist charity is stupid. Atheism is the lack of a belief (that being in the existance of gods), a negitive position as opposed to theism's positive claim on a belief. No charity would be formed in the name of there being no god. There are plenty of secular and humanistic charities, which have nothing to do with religion. The existance of charities with a religious agenda mean nothing. Note that the Roman Catholic Church has closed their charity efforts in areas where gay people are allowed to adopt children in the past, which should show you the danger of charities with agendas like that of religions.
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:15:46 pm
I'm not sure what you want to bring it into. The debate?
Yea! These dabates are always Christians Vs. Others. Sometimes it's Christ Vs. Science, or we throw muslims into it, but all in all, Jehovah get's way too much of the spot light.
No. It isn't alright to be a hypocrite, however. I want Christians to own up to the existance of bad stuff in the Bible, not to follow it.
I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to find some christians who will admit that there is some bad stuff in the bible that you shouldn't follow.
The idea of an expicitly atheist charity is stupid. Atheism is the lack of a belief (that being in the existance of gods), a negitive position as opposed to theism's positive claim on a belief. No charity would be formed in the name of there being no god. There are plenty of secular and humanistic charities, which have nothing to do with religion. The existance of charities with a religious agenda mean nothing. Note that the Roman Catholic Church has closed their charity efforts in areas where gay people are allowed to adopt children in the past, which should show you the danger of charities with agendas like that of religions.
So, doing good in the name of a deity you beleve in is ok, but doing good in the name of defending the fact that no such diety exists is silly? Well there you have it! If people like said deity, they will do good! Who the hell cares what the bible has to say, as long as they don't rape there neighbors and help elderly women cross the street, for fear of burning in hell, they don't need to know or understand the bible! Mind control at it's greatest!
And pish, so the vattakin has problems with gays. I'm sure over time, if we fight for homosexual rights, they will change there minds. I beleive our latest pope said that under specific situatons condoms are ok, if web comics are to be trusted, and they are.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 11:20:50 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 11:24:40 pm
Atheism doesn't have any organization. It can't want any more members. It makes about as much sense to have an atheistic charity as it does to have a charity supported by conspiracy theorists or something. (There's not very many examples that don't use religion, okay? I could just have easily said people who don't believe in the FSM)
You are missing the point on the whole charity thing, but I don't think you are taking it seriously anyway. In any case, the Vatican has changed over the centuries, but not all that much. In my eyes, they are still an evil organization for the things that they've done, and will probably remain so untill the whole church falls in on itself.I wouldn't call them evil, but they're not exactly the best around.
AND THEY TOTALLY REPRESENT EVERY CHRISTIAN EVER (not directed directly at you, but the thread in general)
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:25:15 pm
I don't care if the church lead crusades against the east back before anybody here was alive, there not doing that today. The wost thing the church does is tell homosexual people that they are sinners for the way that there god made them (But most are smart enough to see through this) and that any sex before marrage is wrong, so don't use a comdom (And granted one way spreads STIs and the other is bad for your emotional state, when was the last time teenage kids cared about god?)
I don't think it is possible to count the number of people that don't do bad things for fear of devine retribution. If you are a prick, you get stuck by lightning, and people belive it! It's so perfect!
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 01, 2011, 11:28:15 pm
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:29:13 pm
That's just about it.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 11:33:43 pm
I want Christians to own up to the existance of bad stuff in the Bible, not to follow it.
You come off as an old man sitting by a window shaking his fist at the local church.
I've never heard a a Christian trying to weasel out of admitting there is bad stuff in the Bible. Ever. Not only that but what you mean by "bad stuff" is quite vague.
And the Vatican is not an evil thing it's just got a wrong view.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 11:35:05 pm
I like religen, because religen says that bad things happen to bad people, so people try to be good.Okay, so what's your opinion on karma-like systems?
That's just about it.
But seriously, do most people need a reason to be good? The only people that actually need a reason to be good are going to ignore it and do it anyway, or are need in some actual counseling or something, or both. That help may come from the people within the religion, but it never comes from the religion itself. Religion doesn't help those who are unwilling to help themselves, and one that claims it does, is just trying to get members.
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:35:26 pm
You come off as an old man sitting by a window shaking his fist at the local church.
:P
Dang Christans! The Salem whitch hunts happened, and I know it! Fess up!
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 01, 2011, 11:35:58 pm
Just my opinion, though.
(Also I think it is spelled religion.)
Double ninja'd, all away across the sky!
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:39:33 pm
Okay, so what's your opinion on karma-like systems?
Well it also works, but the amazing part of religen is that it says you get punished after death. So with normal karma, you see somebody do something wrong, and never get punished, and your beleifs are swayed. With hell, when somebody is clearly doing the wrong thing, and is never punished, then when they die (And they always do in the end) then you can sit back and laugh and say "Well atleast they are now in hell! Glad that will never happen to me!"
But seriously, do most people need a reason to be good? The only people that actually need a reason to be good are going to ignore it and do it anyway, or are need in some actual counseling or something, or both. That help may come from the people within the religion, but it never comes from the religion itself. Religion doesn't help those who are unwilling to help themselves, and one that claims it does, is just trying to get members.
YES! When soilders raid a town after capture, they loot and pillage and rape. When businessmen are in charge of an economy that not many understand, they cut corners and crash what ever they can.
People like to be greedy little S.O.Bs, and we need everything we can to stop them.
I am, of corse, the only exeption to this rule, because I'm awesome. ;D
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:41:04 pm
Well, it is my personal opinion that the "don't do things because they are bad" way of thinking is not a very good way of thinking.
Just my opinion, though.
Why not? It seems logical.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 01, 2011, 11:43:07 pm
That's another thing they like, forgivness.Not what I'm talking about.
I don't care if the church lead crusades against the east back before anybody here was alive, there not doing that today.
Quote
The wost thing the church does is tell homosexual people that they are sinners for the way that there god made them (But most are smart enough to see through this)
Can you even imagine the emotional torment that would bring to a homosexual raised catholic? I certainly can't. To wake up every day with deeply ingraned thoughts that you are a horrible and evil individual just because of how you are? That is by no means alright.
Quote
and that any sex before marrage is wrong, so don't use a comdom (And granted one way spreads STIs and the other is bad for your emotional state, when was the last time teenage kids cared about god?)There are people who continue to have children that they cannot feed and contract HIV in impovershed nations heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, all because the Pope says that condoms are bad. I have no sympathy for an organization that specifically creates such problems in the name of ideological purity.
Quote
I don't think it is possible to count the number of people that don't do bad things for fear of devine retribution. If you are a prick, you get stuck by lightning, and people belive it! It's so perfect!If anyone refrians from doing bad things only because they fear their god, then they have much bigger problems than religious indoctrination. Plus, the Vatican has other problems. You know, that whole covering up rampant child molestation thing?
I like religen, because religen says that bad things happen to bad people, so people try to be good.Guess what. Bad things also happen to good people. The "good" that these people try to be is whatever their religion says is good, which it doesn't have to actually be.
That's just about it.
You come off as an old man sitting by a window shaking his fist at the local church.I'm quite young, actually.
Quote
I've never heard a a Christian trying to weasel out of admitting there is bad stuff in the Bible. Ever.Then you don't know the christians I know.
Quote
Not only that but what you mean by "bad stuff" is quite vague.I could make a list, but there's already one here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) that shows the sort of stuff I'm talking about. (Not all of the catagories though, use your judgement.)
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 01, 2011, 11:45:17 pm
I'm also a believer in reincarnation. A person isn't punished in this life, they will in the next. I'm not going to try to preach to people though.Okay, so what's your opinion on karma-like systems?
Well it also works, but the amazing part of religen is that it says you get punished after death. So with normal karma, you see somebody do something wrong, and never get punished, and your beleifs are swayed. With hell, when somebody is clearly doing the wrong thing, and is never punished, then when they die (And they always do in the end) then you can sit back and laugh and say "Well atleast they are now in hell! Glad that will never happen to me!"But seriously, do most people need a reason to be good? The only people that actually need a reason to be good are going to ignore it and do it anyway, or are need in some actual counseling or something, or both. That help may come from the people within the religion, but it never comes from the religion itself. Religion doesn't help those who are unwilling to help themselves, and one that claims it does, is just trying to get members.
YES! When soilders raid a town after capture, they loot and pillage and rape. When businessmen are in charge of an economy that not many understand, they cut corners and crash what ever they can.
People like to be greedy little S.O.Bs, and we need everything we can to stop them.
I am, of corse, the only exeption to this rule, because I'm awesome. ;D
People in the military are trained to be like that. They are not trained to really deal with civilians. They get caught up in the heat of battle. There's a reason so many veterans get permanent psychological damage.
In business, people don't think of other people, they think of numbers. You don't think of real people in a video game, and that's all they really appear to be in business. Numbers contributing to your "score" to make it go higher.
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:49:26 pm
Can you even imagine the emotional torment that would bring to a homosexual raised catholic? I certainly can't. To wake up every day with deeply ingraned thoughts that you are a horrible and evil individual just because of how you are? That is by no means alright.
No, I can't. I didn't grow up in a perticualy god fearing house, and I'm not gay. I do have a freind who is gay and christan, but that is a small sample group. Do you have any studies reguarding the issue, so we have something with soild evdence to go off, as a sence of empathy is hardly debate material.
Quote
There are people who continue to have children that they cannot feed and contract HIV in impovershed nations heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, all because the Pope says that condoms are bad. I have no sympathy for an organization that specifically creates such problems in the name of ideological purity.
No realy, were are you reading this? I like links.
Quote
If anyone refrians from doing bad things only because they fear their god, then they have much bigger problems than religious indoctrination. Plus, the Vatican has other problems. You know, that whole covering up rampant child molestation thing?
Some people are sick and perverted, some people are part of the Church, would you like me to draw you a venn diagram to explain why there are sick perverts in the church? I think it is because people in the church are meant to be 'holy' that it has gotten more attention then any other demographic of sicko.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 11:50:30 pm
But on a serious note Max is right. Simply because there are perverts in the church doesn't mean that there are no other perverts anywhere.
And maybe condoms are bad. I think they are. Does that mean I enjoy the plight of many impoverished nations?
Post by: Max White on January 01, 2011, 11:52:52 pm
I'm also a believer in reincarnation. A person isn't punished in this life, they will in the next. I'm not going to try to preach to people though.
People in the military are trained to be like that. They are not trained to really deal with civilians. They get caught up in the heat of battle. There's a reason so many veterans get permanent psychological damage.
In business, people don't think of other people, they think of numbers. You don't think of real people in a video game, and that's all they really appear to be in business. Numbers contributing to your "score" to make it go higher.
Do you believe that your actions in this life determin what tier of live you get next time around? Therefor instead of hell, you get sewer rat? Or are do you belive in a clean slate each time. In that case, what religen are you?
Quote
In life, people don't think of other people
Fix'd that. *Emo hair flick* but realy, the only thing stopping all sorts of foul actions in fear of some sort of retribution, be it police or holy.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 01, 2011, 11:56:16 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 12:00:16 am
No realy, were are you reading this? I like links.Here's one for you. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids)
Quote
Some people are sick and perverted, some people are part of the Church, would you like me to draw you a venn diagram to explain why there are sick perverts in the church? I think it is because people in the church are meant to be 'holy' that it has gotten more attention then any other demographic of sicko.And everything would be fine if the Vatican expelled the child molesting priests and left them to the law, instead of covering up what happened (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407808/Pope-led-cover-child-abuse-priests.html) and doing everything within their power to keep the victims from telling. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html)
And I knew you weren't an old man. I can see you.Well, I for one am creeped out now.
Quote
And maybe condoms are bad. I think they are.Condoms prevent unwanted children and lessen STD rates. Why would you think of them as bad?
Quote
Does that mean I enjoy the plight of many impoverished nations?If you were in a position of great authority to said impoverished nations, and told them to never use condoms, then you would be spreading the problem. This has nothing to do with taking some sort of sadistic joy in their plight.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:03:43 am
Sorry if that seems like I'm just downplaying your evidence for no real reason, I feel like a jerk for doing it realy, but if your trying to convince me of anything, then no newspaper will ever achive that.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 12:05:02 am
Man, they make you feel like you're swimming with rubber boots on. Bad condoms, bad.QuoteAnd maybe condoms are bad. I think they are.Condoms prevent unwanted children and lessen STD rates. Why would you think of them as bad?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:06:13 am
Man, they make you feel like you're swimming with rubber boots on. Bad condoms, bad.
Resisting urge to make joke refering to size of penis inside rubber boot...
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 12:08:33 am
I don't trust what I read in the paper, only sceitific reports. Papers are made to sell copys, reports are made to report.If you really think that there exists no truth in the news, then just go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases) and look through the citations for somthing you do consider valid.
Sorry if that seems like I'm just downplaying your evidence for no real reason, I feel like a jerk for doing it realy, but if your trying to convince me of anything, then no newspaper will ever achive that.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:09:32 am
I trust wikipedia a little more though, be back after some light reading!
EDIT:
Oh come on, in the opeinign paragraph.
Quote
In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses as well
These people don't represent the church, there just a cancer that grew out of its side, and the church it trying to get rid of it.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 12:10:35 am
No, there are no "tiers of life". All life is equally "sacred" and should be respected. Whatever you are reincarnated as is probably determined by the gods in some way, most likely constructed to teach you a lesson somehow.I'm also a believer in reincarnation. A person isn't punished in this life, they will in the next. I'm not going to try to preach to people though.
People in the military are trained to be like that. They are not trained to really deal with civilians. They get caught up in the heat of battle. There's a reason so many veterans get permanent psychological damage.
In business, people don't think of other people, they think of numbers. You don't think of real people in a video game, and that's all they really appear to be in business. Numbers contributing to your "score" to make it go higher.
Do you believe that your actions in this life determin what tier of live you get next time around? Therefor instead of hell, you get sewer rat? Or are do you belive in a clean slate each time. In that case, what religen are you?QuoteIn life, people don't think of other people
Fix'd that. *Emo hair flick* but realy, the only thing stopping all sorts of foul actions in fear of some sort of retribution, be it police or holy.
Uh huh, you go ahead and think that. I'll be here with those that say that people aren't all bad. Really, life is not naturally good or bad. Including humans and whatever sentient life may or may not exist out there. (Hey, you never know, right?)
If my memory serves my correctly CrownofFire is reading about Wicca and from the sound of it that is indeed his religion. And I think that would mean he believes that every living think at some point has or will be a tree, turtle, shark if you've been good.Sort of. You will get reincarnated as a bunch of other things, but I don't pretend to know what you will be reincarnated as, nor when it all "ends". (Presumably, when the universe does, unless it all starts up again)
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:15:19 am
I like new beleifs. If you don't think of it as offencive, would you mind telling me a little more about your own? Between most of the people I know being christan, and a few with eatern beleifs, I have never talked to somebody that beleived in Wicca, and a big part of tolerance is understanding.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 02, 2011, 12:18:55 am
Darn my stupid way of saying things!Well, it is my personal opinion that the "don't do things because they are bad" way of thinking is not a very good way of thinking.
Just my opinion, though.
Why not? It seems logical.
What I meant was, "Don't do this because I say it is bad" should be replaced with "Don't do this because you have figured it out for yourself that it is something that should not be done".
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:20:46 am
Darn my stupid way of saying things!
What I meant was, "Don't do this because I say it is bad" should be replaced with "Don't do this because you have figured it out for yourself that it is something that should not be done".
But that isn't mass brainwashing at all! Why it leaves room for error, what if somebody decided that was most think to be unthinkable, was in there situation perfectly fine?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:24:05 am
Quote
Some have handled these matters very poorly (as evidenced in Boston) while others have handled these issues very well.
From wikipedia. Seems this wasn't some evil mass cover up at all. This was a strange event that gave positions of power to several men, some understanding and acting well on it, others not so much. The fault was not of the church, or even the faith, but the men who did not know how to handle these circumstances.
Quote
According to Crikey, The Age of March 19 reported that the Vienna Boys Choir “has been caught up in accusations that pedophile priests systematically abused their choristers.” On the same day, The Australian reported that “the crisis over sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has intensified” as a result of the choir scandal. However, once it became apparent that the Vienna Boys Choir is a private organisation, and "the complaints of abuse were made against teachers and older choristers, not priests.... the media dropped the story: the choristers’ suffering ceased to be interesting without a church angle... no apologies, retractions or Media Watch denunciations."
See, the media just wants to hype anything from the church, they don't care about any other group.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 12:33:08 am
Interesting.ITT: I explain my beliefs for the tenth time.
I like new beleifs. If you don't think of it as offencive, would you mind telling me a little more about your own? Between most of the people I know being christan, and a few with eatern beleifs, I have never talked to somebody that beleived in Wicca, and a big part of tolerance is understanding.
What do you want to know?
Basics first: Reincarnation, pantheism AND panentheism, duotheism (God and Goddess), Rule of Three (karma-like thing, but three times), Wiccan Rede (piece of advice, really), self responsibility is big, gods are neutral and natural, blah, blah blah. Just ask me what you want specifically.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:37:26 am
Well, were I to ask a christan about he's church, he starts with god. Were I to ask a Muslin, they would tell me about Allah, and were I to ask a Buddist, they would tell me about inner sanctum.
So, do you beleive in a diety?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 12:40:21 am
Such a wide open question, I feel like a kid in a candy store!Look above and you'd see it, but yes. Well, two, actually, the God and Goddess, dualistic view, two sides of the same coin (but not the same deity), and so on. But I'm pantheistic and panentheistic. I don't want to explain it, you can look pantheism and panentheism up on Wikipedia if you want. Also look up immanence and transcendence.
Well, were I to ask a christan about he's church, he starts with god. Were I to ask a Muslin, they would tell me about Allah, and were I to ask a Buddist, they would tell me about inner sanctum.
So, do you beleive in a diety?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:42:22 am
Every other person I have ever met has shot down wikipedia for misrepresenting there veiws.
I find so very few people who have the exact same vales and beleifs as there church would teach.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 12:44:43 am
Wow, somebody encoraging me to look up a specific religen on wikipedia?No, not the exact same, just the pantheism, panentheism, immanence, and transcendence pages should do fine for this part.
Every other person I have ever met has shot down wikipedia for misrepresenting there veiws.
I find so very few people who have the exact same vales and beleifs as there church would teach.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 12:45:40 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 02:25:14 am
Condoms prevent unwanted children and lessen STD rates. Why would you think of them as bad?
I am religiously opposed to condoms. I like to clarify that I am not Catholic.
I have a developed a foolproof method of preventing unwanted children and stopping STD's.
But those secrets will die with me!
Post by: Realmfighter on January 02, 2011, 02:28:51 am
Or is that always......
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 02:48:19 am
Post by: Realmfighter on January 02, 2011, 02:50:33 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 02:51:33 am
No, I'm just saying that gay sex is never not the answer.
I've been wrong all these years....
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 02:56:38 am
Post by: CoughDrop on January 02, 2011, 10:05:27 am
It's not like 99.99...% of sperm cells are wasted regardless if you... hit the mark.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 10:19:10 am
How can you be opposed to condoms?You know, the pope actually said that condoms are sometimes okay. More specifically, to prevent HIV. I don't have a link, you can Google it yourself if you want. There was a link a while back in this thread.
It's not like 99.99...% of sperm cells are wasted regardless if you... hit the mark.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 02, 2011, 10:31:39 am
How can you be opposed to condoms?You know, the pope actually said that condoms are sometimes okay. More specifically, to prevent HIV. I don't have a link, you can Google it yourself if you want. There was a link a while back in this thread.
It's not like 99.99...% of sperm cells are wasted regardless if you... hit the mark.
Ah, I didn't know that. Learn something (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/vatican-clarifies-popes-statements-on-condoms/) new every day.
Can someone please explain to me exactly why they (or a group of others) do not support the use of condoms?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 10:35:27 am
They're just against contraception in general. No idea why, but I vaguely remember some Bible verse about wasting sperm or something.How can you be opposed to condoms?You know, the pope actually said that condoms are sometimes okay. More specifically, to prevent HIV. I don't have a link, you can Google it yourself if you want. There was a link a while back in this thread.
It's not like 99.99...% of sperm cells are wasted regardless if you... hit the mark.
Ah, I didn't know that. Learn something (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/21/vatican-clarifies-popes-statements-on-condoms/) new every day.
Can someone please explain to me exactly why they (or a group of others) do not support the use of condoms?
Post by: CoughDrop on January 02, 2011, 10:43:30 am
Found it:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Urist is dead tome, why do YOU oppose condoms?
Note that I may or may not become argumentative. Most likely I will.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 03:09:28 pm
How can you be opposed to condoms?
It's not like 99.99...% of sperm cells are wasted regardless if you... hit the mark.
Some people (Like me.) are opposed to condoms on religious reasons.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 03:13:23 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 03:27:11 pm
It interferes with natural sex.
If you want details ask one of the Jewish guys around here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 03:29:54 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 03:30:54 pm
To put it blatantly.Because if it's natural it's automatically good ::)
It interferes with natural sex.
If you want details ask one of the Jewish guys around here.
Having fun with your appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 03:32:38 pm
These are laws I put into my own life. No one else.
I am not advocating this to anyone.
It's not an appeal to nature I just am trying to follow laws set in the Old Testament.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 03:36:13 pm
You are confused on my views my lad.I know that. What, I can't try to convince you otherwise, personally?
These are laws I put into my own life. No one else.
Quote
I just am trying to follow laws set in the Old Testament.You're already breaking at least one of them by communicating with an atheist like me. The laws set in the Old Testament would get you thrown into jail for the remainder of your life if you were to follow all of them, given that some command the death of others.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 03:39:06 pm
All I know is "One who spares the rod hates his son. But one who beats him roundly loves him."
I just really love that quote. And I didn't know where to go from here.
This seems as good a time as any to ask a quite important question.
Am I considered to be the religious crazy around here?
Post by: scriver on January 02, 2011, 03:58:23 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 04:09:09 pm
Oh I know that.So, assuming that you aren't typing to us from a jail cell, you have yet to follow the Old Testament laws about killing sinners. Why is it alright for you to pick and choose what laws from it to follow?
Quote
All I know is "One who spares the rod hates his son. But one who beats him roundly loves him."It also says that "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Somehow, I think that's a better lesson than telling you to beat your children.
I just really love that quote. And I didn't know where to go from here.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:21:30 pm
The Torah, considered to be one of the holiest books of Judaism is the first five books of the Bible and the book of Esther.
Considering this, why are you saying Christians are weaseling out of "bad stuff" in the Bible when that is the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 05:27:18 pm
Considering this, why are you saying Christians are weaseling out of "bad stuff" in the Bible when that is the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures?I don't understand the question. The Bible containing most of the Torah doesn't change anything about Christians denying the actions of their god and others as discribed in said book.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:28:24 pm
The reason Christians don't follow all the Old Testament stuff is because Jesus abolished them. (But they still use them to preach.)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:29:46 pm
I, for one, don't think you're a zealous nut. (Although some may think I am for being Objectivist.)
The reason Christians don't follow all the Old Testament stuff is because Jesus abolished them. (But they still use them to preach.)
Mr. Z got it right on. Many of the laws in the Old Testament have been abolished.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:36:31 pm
And yeah, the old testament was put together over hundreds (or thousands?) of years. I remember hearing about a section of acts where a preacher-rabbi-dude was teaching the Ethiopian Queen's Treasurer about a passage from Isaiah. (Did I spell that right?)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 05:38:44 pm
But you're complaints against Christianity are out of context because of the New Testament. If you are going to complain about the Old Testament you may want to find some Orthodox Jews.Jesus outright says that he did not come to abolish the old laws. My complaints against Christianity are by no means out of context considering that, especially (as Zrk said) when Christians are attempting to use Old Testament verses to affect United States (or any other nation, for that matter) law and society. ("Thou shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman for it is an abomination", just to name one.)I, for one, don't think you're a zealous nut. (Although some may think I am for being Objectivist.)
The reason Christians don't follow all the Old Testament stuff is because Jesus abolished them. (But they still use them to preach.)
Mr. Z got it right on. Many of the laws in the Old Testament have been abolished.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:42:29 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:45:23 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:46:18 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:46:51 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 05:50:43 pm
Yeah. Like Voltaire said."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hurray for tolerance.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 05:53:24 pm
I'm afraid that Voltaire's statement is starting to become overused, however. I've seen people quote him to try and appear tolerant in debate right before they try to silence their critics (not at Bay 12, though.).Yeah. Like Voltaire said."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hurray for tolerance.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:53:54 pm
And he was a best friend of Ben Franklin.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 05:54:11 pm
Overuse doesn't mean it isn't a good rule to live by.I'm afraid that Voltaire's statement is starting to become overused, however. I've seen people quote him to try and appear tolerant in debate right before they try to silence their critics (not at Bay 12, though.).Yeah. Like Voltaire said."I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hurray for tolerance.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:54:36 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 05:55:05 pm
Here! Here!Where? Where?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:55:56 pm
Voltaire appears to be a genius.
And he was a best friend of Ben Franklin.
That requires absolute awesome.
And it is still much better than
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z8gCZ7zpsQ
There! There!
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 05:56:41 pm
Claiming that Christians are weaseling out of the bad stuff in the Bible is ridiculous because many don't use the Old Testament as part of judging what is right and wrong.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 05:58:05 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 06:01:00 pm
Claiming that Christians are weaseling out of the bad stuff in the Bible is ridiculous because many don't use the Old Testament as part of judging what is right and wrong.Which denomination of christianity do you have in mind specifically?
I was going to call grammar nazi squad, but the religen-guy seem to have left for now.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:02:10 pm
Claiming that Christians are weaseling out of the bad stuff in the Bible is ridiculous because many don't use the Old Testament as part of judging what is right and wrong.Which denomination of christianity do you have in mind specifically?
I was going to call grammar nazi squad, but the religen-guy seem to have left for now.
Mainstream in particular.
But if they were mainstream Christians then they probably shouldn't have used the Old Testament for backing their beliefs.*.
Mainstream Christians really should pretty much use only the New Testament because the Old Testament is pretty much just a record of Judaism and events leading to the birth of Christ to them.
*Due to my beliefs heavily influenced by Judaism I would not count myself as part of mainstream Christianity.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 06:05:28 pm
Quote
"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan.
Claiming that Christians are weaseling out of the bad stuff in the Bible is ridiculous because many don't use the Old Testament as part of judging what is right and wrong.Look, if you deny the horrific atrocites of the Old Testament (and to a lesser extent, New Testament) and say that the christian god is a loving and benevolent character, it doesn't matter if you use it for right and wrong or not, you are attempting to distance yourself from the parts of the Bible you don't like. I'm simply not going to sit back and watch people use one part of an ancient text to justify their beliefs while at the same time pretending that the less savory parts of said text don't exist.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 06:07:11 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:08:14 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 06:09:57 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 06:18:39 pm
I'm not denying what the Israelites did nor am I distancing myself from the Old Testament. As earlier said I use the Old Testament for most of my beliefs. But how would you get back you're homeland if it was taken?Homeland?! The Isralites didn't live in the promised land before they conqured it and killed everyone else there! It was the homeland of the people who were already living there. The Israelites of the Old Testament were obviously conquerors acting under a the idea of being in a holy war for land they were "promised".
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:18:49 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 06:23:25 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:25:17 pm
Which denomination of christianity do you have in mind specifically?
I was going to call grammar nazi squad, but the religen-guy seem to have left for now.
I hate those guys! Mostly because I suck at spelling, due to terminal lazyness, and they feel obliged to disreguard anything I say because of it.
Not from what he says.
Then leave him alone! You guys asked him for an opinion, he gave it, you started an onslaught! Freeking mongals.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:26:05 pm
I'm not denying what the Israelites did nor am I distancing myself from the Old Testament. As earlier said I use the Old Testament for most of my beliefs. But how would you get back you're homeland if it was taken?Homeland?! The Isralites didn't live in the promised land before they conqured it and killed everyone else there! It was the homeland of the people who were already living there. The Israelites of the Old Testament were obviously conquerors acting under a the idea of being in a holy war for land they were "promised".
Okay. Say you do a favor for someone. And they promise you a car. You keep doing favors for a couple of weeks. Than it turns out someone stole you're car. It's still you're car. It's just been stolen.
Hence. Their homeland.
And yes. I'maware of the stupidity of this analogy.
Which denomination of christianity do you have in mind specifically?
I was going to call grammar nazi squad, but the religen-guy seem to have left for now.
I hate those guys! Mostly because I suck at spelling, due to terminal lazyness, and they feel obliged to disreguard anything I say because of it.Not from what he says.
Then leave him alone! You guys asked him for an opinion, he gave it, you started an onslaught! Freeking mongals.
Actually I've been enjoying myself here.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 06:26:56 pm
Which denomination of christianity do you have in mind specifically?
I was going to call grammar nazi squad, but the religen-guy seem to have left for now.
I hate those guys! Mostly because I suck at spelling, due to terminal lazyness, and they feel obliged to disreguard anything I say because of it.Not from what he says.
Then leave him alone! You guys asked him for an opinion, he gave it, you started an onslaught! Freeking mongals.
It's Mongols. Capitalized and with a second 'o'.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:28:25 pm
It's Mongols. Capitalized and with a second 'o'.
I see what you did there. ;D
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 06:37:58 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:40:08 pm
Now, didn't we have something about god, and faith, and condoms going on?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:46:12 pm
My point there was that I don't like the idea of condoms because they are interfere with natural reproduction. And just to clarify, I am not making an appeal to nature here.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 06:50:26 pm
Also, do you dislike all the other forms of interference? Other contraceptives, abstinence, masturbation, extravaginal intercourse, social norms?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:50:34 pm
I mean we can debate all day over wether condoms are good or bad, although I would rather not, because I support there use, and I'm sure a lot of others do too, so for the few willing to go against them, it would be rather one sided, and thats no fun. But it is an absolute truth that Urist is dead tome is against the use of condoms.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 06:52:07 pm
DON'T YOU?!
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:53:06 pm
But I can't be sure, so I won't hold it against him.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:54:08 pm
We got that bit, I think. But why do you not like the idea of interfering with natural reproduction?
Also, do you dislike all the other forms of interference? Other contraceptives, abstinence, masturbation, extravaginal intercourse, social norms?
Good question!
The pill I would be OK with as long as the couple is married. Abstinence I am highly favoring. As for the last two I would count them as adultery. And what do you mean by social norms?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:57:39 pm
See, he is crazy.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 06:58:43 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 06:59:30 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 07:01:46 pm
And what do you mean by social norms?Well, you know, the nature tells you to bang that woman across the street right now, but you've been told that it's not socially acceptable to have a sexual intercourse on the pavement, and without getting the girl's consent first.
Them social norms, you see, are interfering with the natural way of things.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:02:38 pm
And what do you mean by social norms?Well, you know, the nature tells you to bang that woman across the street right now, but you've been told that it's not socially acceptable to have a sexual intercourse on the pavement, and without getting the girl's consent first.
Them social norms, you see, are interfering with the natural way of things.
I meant stuff that directly interferes with the act itself.
And this place is so much more orderly ever since MetalSlimeHunt stopped posting.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:05:39 pm
I meant stuff that directly interferes with the act itself.
And this place is so much more orderly ever since MetalSlimeHunt stopped posting.
You moraly object to room mates who enter before knocking?
Funny, so do I.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:07:11 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 07:08:14 pm
I meant stuff that directly interferes with the act itself.Well, o.k., so we know which forms of interference you object to, and which you don't mind. Now, why?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:10:19 pm
Max. I don't get half the stuff you post to be honest.
Take it with a pinch of salt, and you never have to.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:21:21 pm
And I don't see the big deal with 'interfering with nature,' humans do that by living.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 07:21:49 pm
And this place is so much more orderly ever since MetalSlimeHunt stopped posting.Who said I stopped anything?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:23:01 pm
Say something debate proviking MetalSlimeHunt! If you can't think of anything, go watch 'An inconvinient truth' and come back.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:24:15 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 07:25:01 pm
Oh good, he is back!No.
Say something debate proviking MetalSlimeHunt! If you can't think of anything, go watch 'An inconvinient truth' and come back.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:25:51 pm
Did abortion get completely missed?
Hopefuly, that topic tends to get messy. I mean were breaking away from philisophy and going into ethics once that comes up.
No.
Heart breaking. :(
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:27:02 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:29:01 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:31:34 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:32:46 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 07:35:21 pm
Saying that the Christan church is in charge of contraception is like saying Al Gore is in charge of global walming. Yes, you can link the two, but they are seperate entitys.When did we ever decide that? It sounds to me like everybody is rejecting whatever the Vatican says. Including the one semi-Christian we have here.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:37:05 pm
Wait, wasn't that what I was saying? That even those the church says one thing, they are not the be all and end all? Just like Al Gore isn't the only guy to ever talk about global walming?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:40:30 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:44:05 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:45:22 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:45:38 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 02, 2011, 07:47:56 pm
Because if you are, my good sir, than I shall have to enter internet fisticuffs with you!
Also, religion, not religen. It's kind of distracting.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:49:12 pm
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
And as for abortion I believe in the Jewish way as well in that it is sub human until like it's head is out.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:52:12 pm
Are you trying to say that The Gore is not the greatest of all authorities on global warming?
Because if you are, my good sir, than I shall have to enter internet fisticuffs with you!
Also, religion, not religen. It's kind of distracting.
*Throws glove unto thy ground*
You have insulted my honer, good sir! For all the work that many scientists preform, it is a sin for any one man to convolute there data, even for a good cause! Because of the follys of that one man, debates all over the internet were pushed back 20 years!
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 07:53:28 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:54:34 pm
Let's get outta here!
Doesn't that just affirm the 'sanctity' of marriage?
See I think it does both. It also kinda says stuff against cohabitation.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:55:12 pm
and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
I don't understand the significants of this line in context to the debate.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:56:18 pm
More likely it points to insanity on my part.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 02, 2011, 07:57:55 pm
Feel free to disagree.
*Throws glove unto thy ground*A challenge!
Shall it be pistols at dawn, then?
A condom could be seen as interfering with the "one in flesh" part.and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
I don't understand the significants of this line in context to the debate.
I think that is what he is trying to say I could be wrong.
Too many ninjas!
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 07:59:21 pm
And for the dueling part. I call being Max White's second!
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 07:59:48 pm
A challenge!
Shall it be pistols at dawn, then?
So remind me, because I issued the challenge, but you chose pistols, who brings the guns?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 08:00:28 pm
OK I found a verse that I think points against all unnatural things in sex.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
And as for abortion I believe in the Jewish way as well in that it is sub human until like it's head is out.
It sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.
And the Jews are ok with abortion?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 08:02:10 pm
And it the choice of both the father, the mother, and their Rabbi.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 08:04:30 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 08:06:12 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 08:08:27 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 08:09:52 pm
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 08:10:22 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 08:11:10 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 02, 2011, 08:12:00 pm
Who brings the guns?The internet provides the guns.
We shall take this to the Picture Fight thread!
(Or we could just forget about it, I'm fine with either.)
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 08:12:47 pm
:D
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 08:15:41 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 02, 2011, 08:22:18 pm
Spoiler: Off Topic (click to show/hide)
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 08:29:34 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 02, 2011, 08:55:05 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 08:56:06 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 09:00:07 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 02, 2011, 09:00:27 pm
I agree. I don't even consider Buddhism to be a religion.How is Buddhism not a religion? Because OBVIOUSLY a religion has to have a god/gods, amirite?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 09:05:30 pm
Post by: Glowcat on January 02, 2011, 09:06:35 pm
I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.
Most Eastern 'religions' were founded as philosophies but accumulated mysticism and even dogma when they spread among the common folk. Some Buddhist groups even deteriorated into Theocracies.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 02, 2011, 09:10:01 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 09:11:15 pm
Post by: scriver on January 02, 2011, 09:18:08 pm
I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.Atheism is not necessarily limited to unbelief in God/gods, despite that being it's literal meaning. The reason atheism so often gets confined in such a way is that during the birth and growth of the idea, it has been a very much "western", or west-centrated, construct, pitted against the God of the Christian and Jewish mythologies. Modern atheism isn't just restricted to this or the "western" hemisphere, however, and so to expand it to other parts of the world, a broadening of the concept is required. Thus, atheism, especially modern atheism, should not be seen just as a standpoint on whether or not God exists, but on mythologies in general. Better defined as a point of view which questions the credibility of religion/myths/superstitions in general.
Besides, lots of Buddhist branches have gods, so atheism as unbelief in gods are still very much applicable to it.
Post by: Shade-o on January 02, 2011, 09:20:11 pm
Quote
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
What was it that made you decide to follow this particular verse and not many of the others?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 02, 2011, 09:23:11 pm
Post by: CoughDrop on January 02, 2011, 09:28:35 pm
I have found that using actual bits of scripture can lead to two windbags quoting them back and forth at each other for too long.
Which is why I've given up arguing on the subject. If either person takes anything from the endeavor, it would be that it was essentially a waste of time. In turn, the actual arguments (ITT) are almost exclusively about semantics.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 09:38:07 pm
Quote"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."
What was it that made you decide to follow this particular verse and not many of the others?
You have a list of verses that were applicable to my point?
Post by: Shade-o on January 02, 2011, 09:43:32 pm
If you are indeed incarcerated, then my sympathy to you. If you are on a super crime-spree, then you have severe media exposure problems.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 10:42:11 pm
I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.
I like this guy, I like him a lot. Somebody get him a cookie of hes choice!
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:08:55 pm
Well, I can only assume that you do not follow many other pieces of divine advice, as that would make you either a prisoner or the world's greatest supervillain.
If you are indeed incarcerated, then my sympathy to you. If you are on a super crime-spree, then you have severe media exposure problems.
Once again, many laws of the Old Testament have no meaning today.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 02, 2011, 11:13:36 pm
Mind I'm not saying it's all archaic and idiotic, but much of it is, in all religions.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:15:46 pm
Do you have any examples of laws in the New Testament that aren't applicable today?
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 11:25:15 pm
"One in ten christians has ever read the bible"
Now he got this sorce from christan websites. You can look up the youtube channel if you want, its entertaining and eduational. If so few have read the bible, then who realy cares what it says? As long as the one a week hour long ceramony says be nice, then what else matters?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:28:18 pm
And I don't like it. People have gone so far as to say that if you don't got to church the you will go to hell.
I really don't like it.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 11:28:58 pm
To quote a great internet super star, one of my few heros, (Toady, threetoe, Tossgirl and a girl on DA being the others)Well, there are still the extremists to worry about.
"One in ten christians has ever read the bible"
Now he got this sorce from christan websites. You can look up the youtube channel if you want, its entertaining and eduational. If so few have read the bible, then who realy cares what it says? As long as the one a week hour long ceramony says be nice, then what else matters?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:29:29 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 11:31:12 pm
I think you are using that quote in the wrong context.Matthew-10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Do you have any examples of laws in the New Testament that aren't applicable today?
Matthew-13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Matthew 18:8-9 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Post by: Max White on January 02, 2011, 11:33:16 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:33:45 pm
I love extremists! They know there beleifs are right, no matter what. Why as long as they know that something is wrong, they will never be lulled into doing it. The problem is that most 'extremists' that you hear about are terrorists on the news, so the word has gotten a bad reputation.
Ya know you're right!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 11:35:28 pm
Those don't really sound like laws.Jesus didn't really set anything that counts as a traditional law. If you want to be literal, the Pharisees had Jesus killed for being a heathen to their faith.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:36:49 pm
Anyway then I guess there are no laws of the New Testament simply advice.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 02, 2011, 11:37:54 pm
Post by: alfie275 on January 02, 2011, 11:43:40 pm
http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/index.php
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 02, 2011, 11:45:48 pm
It seems to be nothing.
Is it anything?
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 02, 2011, 11:46:02 pm
I havent been reading this whole thread, but I noticed irriducible complexity was mentioned and thought you might find this interesting:I'm pretty sure it had been posted here already.
http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/index.php
edit: ah, it was you, only in the previous thread!
Post by: Bauglir on January 03, 2011, 12:54:39 am
EDIT: I should make clear that I am always happy to see people who are willing to admit that conclusion was premature. Seriously, I have a ton of respect for people who are willing to consider new evidence and revise their understanding of the world to account for it. It's difficult, regardless of one's opinions on faith, and I applaud anyone who can do it. I also sometimes need to be a bit better at it. But this particular issue bugs me, because it's one that is never brought forth by people who both understand what evolution claims happened and understand the mechanisms by which evolution is claimed to operate, because it really just isn't defensible.
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 01:04:12 am
Do we have any creationists here to provide counter points? I would, but I have no idea what they see in "There was always every species ever, it's just that mammels only started to die at a certain point in time, and thats why before that there were only reptile fossels!" The arguments just allude me.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 03, 2011, 01:06:17 am
So get started.
Post by: Siquo on January 03, 2011, 05:18:32 am
Spoiler: Also: Damn you Max White (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 05:24:09 am
It compiles web pages from script as it reads, rather then reading the entire page then loading it up. Yea, that makes it faster, but as far as current web architecture goes, it sucks. True, this is an effect of web architecture sucking, so anybody trying to do anything right is against the grain, but it is still annoying.
Also, I have better spelling when I'm writing with a pencil, I don't know why a keyboard stuffs me up.
Post by: Siquo on January 03, 2011, 05:36:14 am
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 05:40:40 am
*Clicky clicky*
It... is ticked. I don't understand. The button is ticked and I can mistype all I like and it makes no mention of bad spelling.
Post by: Siquo on January 03, 2011, 05:45:05 am
(sorry guys for the derail)
So yeah, there's many varieties of Creationism, and only one accepted Scientific explanation. Now, if we take the view that Genesis was not literal (or at least, the people at the time had no idea what the concept of "Day" means to a timeless God), and it might've taken a long time instead of 7 days, where's the argument against that?
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 05:57:40 am
To say that a day was used as a placeholder for seven instances of time implys that there were seven phases of creation. Take the first instance, when he made light, and the heavens, and the earth, to be the big bang, and creation therefor after following a natural path to get us to a toxic yellow sky earth, and the following days to be the history of earth, with plants, and then animals forming, followed by humans showing up, and then on the last day god resting, and having no more infulance over the world.
Well this makes sence in a metaphorical veiw! We would still be in the seventh 'day', or the time after the initial creation, were as god no longer models the world, and instead we, as humans, are masters of the sky, land and sea.
Just one tiny problem. All storys in the bible happen after this event, and most involve god interacting with the world. So we can take the first story of genisis as being metaphoricaly true, but every story from then on is false, or else god isn't resting on the seventh day (The time after the first 6 phases of creation, what were in now) at all!
Post by: Siquo on January 03, 2011, 06:25:41 am
If you've ever played Sim Earth, you'll know that it's fun to watch, but also fun to "nudge" things here and there.
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 06:29:33 am
Toady One the great is doing something of a similar scale with far less resources. :P
Post by: CoughDrop on January 03, 2011, 06:47:37 am
...How boring.
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 06:53:18 am
Thousand of years ago, do you think they knew the world was round? Nope? Then how do you expect they had any idea what the big bang was?
Saying interpriting the bible in an apropriate way for todays society is no fun is like saying going to an art exerbition and trying to figure out the message behind the paitings is no fun.
Post by: Shade-o on January 03, 2011, 07:01:43 am
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 07:04:42 am
Post by: Siquo on January 03, 2011, 07:05:37 am
Edit: ninja'd: The jewish calendar is in year 5771 now.
Post by: Max White on January 03, 2011, 07:10:29 am
Post by: GotIt_00 on January 03, 2011, 01:31:44 pm
Ah, but the Genesis story predates those Greeks.
It's a story about genesis. By form, creation myths must predate recorded history.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 03, 2011, 02:01:45 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 03, 2011, 03:42:40 pm
So yeah, there's many varieties of Creationism, and only one accepted Scientific explanation. Now, if we take the view that Genesis was not literal (or at least, the people at the time had no idea what the concept of "Day" means to a timeless God), and it might've taken a long time instead of 7 days, where's the argument against that?It's out of order, chronologically speaking? I mean, you can see that looking at the fossil record.
Or, alternatively, with enough skilful manipulation, you can turn anything into a metaphor about anything else.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 03, 2011, 05:41:14 pm
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory
Post by: Leafsnail on January 03, 2011, 05:46:18 pm
Quote
Memories of that overzealous English teacher who forced you to accept that every character, every scene, and every action had a deep inner meaning have led to widespread fear on the part of readers and viewers everywhere that every tale secretly contains some other story being told in subtext.Yes! Yes!! This completely!
Post by: Zrk2 on January 03, 2011, 06:11:53 pm
Post by: Bauglir on January 03, 2011, 10:25:56 pm
I showed it to my English teacher and he laughed and ignored it.
Either your English teacher is cool and already understands, or else he is like all of mine have been and yours will not be fun classes because he really does think Everyone Is Jesus In Purgatory.
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:11:15 am
But I can be reasonably sure that "Jesus" is an allegory for "Jesus" in the bible.
Post by: optimumtact on January 04, 2011, 05:15:20 am
Well, that's a hard balance to find. Do you read everything at face value, or do you "read between the lines", and run the risk that you read more into the story than was actually intended? In the first case, you miss out on a lot, in the second, you get a lot more than you might've bargained for.
But I can be reasonably sure that "Jesus" is an allegory for "Jesus" in the bible.
Actually there is (oo er) a thought, what could you possible read into something like jesus, is it possible to find some other meaning in Jesus?
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:21:35 am
Post by: optimumtact on January 04, 2011, 05:31:10 am
Well, there's people who think he's actually a Part of God. I don't.
Woah, isn't that a central tenet of Catholic faith? That God, Jesus and The Holy spirit are separate but also the same?? It's interesting, I've never encountered someone with your view before :)
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:41:00 am
Woah, isn't that a central tenet of Catholic faith? That God, Jesus and The Holy spirit are separate but also the same?? It's interesting, I've never encountered someone with your view before :)Yeah, but I'm no catholic. The whole Jesus-is-God trinity thing was created more than 300 years after he died, and there's still a lot of non-trinitarians out there.
Post by: Max White on January 04, 2011, 05:44:11 am
But I can be reasonably sure that "Jesus" is an allegory for "Jesus" in the bible.
That is debatable. Almost as much as saying 'god is an allegory for 'god'.
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:48:59 am
Post by: Max White on January 04, 2011, 05:51:38 am
(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n9/spidert13/jesusYMCA.jpg)
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:57:27 am
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/inside_joke.png)
Post by: malimbar04 on January 04, 2011, 12:44:02 pm
Perhaps it's just a collection of funny memes and the original bible was just a big book of really good inside jokes, like a paper tvtropes.hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*cough*
*chuckle*
hahahahahahahahahahaha
okay, I'm good now.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 02:47:13 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 03:14:25 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 03:21:13 pm
No but seriously I myself am, to an extent, a believer in Kabbalism.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 03:23:32 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2011, 03:32:12 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 03:33:55 pm
For instance the letter Vav is and has been written as a Broken Vav in Sefer Torahs when used in the word "Shalom" and Kabbalists are trying to find why this thing has started. And I for one am wondering why this started.
This idea is fairly common in Judaism but I took it the New Testament.
This thing is fairly new to me so I'm gonna be reading up on it. Over time because a Talmud set is expensive.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 04, 2011, 03:38:00 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 03:41:54 pm
Really? What's the deal? I thought it wass just like a shorter bible?
Uhhh... What?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 04, 2011, 03:43:29 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 03:47:12 pm
A good one will be like a thousand bucks. A lot more expensive than the Tanakh.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 04, 2011, 03:48:13 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 03:49:04 pm
Well my style of Kabbalism is the idea that the Bible was written with the idea that every letter was precisely chosen and that there are indeed hidden meanings behind the letters.Have a course or two, if you want to know why a word has been used in the Bible/Torah and whatnot.
For instance the letter Vav is and has been written as a Broken Vav in Sefer Torahs when used in the word "Shalom" and Kabbalists are trying to find why this thing has started. And I for one am wondering why this started.
http://academicearth.org/subjects/religious-studies
Unless learning that the Genesis is nearly a carbon copy of Enûma Eliš doesn't fit your mystical perception of the thing.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 04:07:26 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 04:10:19 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 04, 2011, 04:12:09 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 04:31:32 pm
What, you've watched it all already? What time-continuum do you occupy?
I occupy all time-continuum's.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 04:37:31 pm
The one I built. LHC is small potatos to it. /derailI hear LHC is the work of the Devil.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 04:40:56 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 04:42:20 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 04:44:26 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2011, 04:48:27 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 04:51:05 pm
No wait! It's a piece of crap that's worth trillions of dollars. My mistake.
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 04:54:32 pm
Post by: Shades on January 04, 2011, 04:58:08 pm
... and your argument for that statement is?
I think he's saying because it didn't instantly make discoveries that are worth the cost it was a waste. Cause you know how all other research ever done had instant results ...
Post by: Leafsnail on January 04, 2011, 05:10:48 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 04, 2011, 05:12:28 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 04, 2011, 05:43:27 pm
Man, wasn't the space programme a worthless piece of crap? All we got from it was some pictures and lots of patriotic bragging.Sarcasm has no place in this thread (too hard to detect) so I'll take this at face value:
Sometimes science needs prestigious projects to justify the enormous amounts of money it costs. I'm really sorry the space-race is over, the spin-offs of that enormous amount of research would otherwise only be discovered/invented much later.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2011, 05:47:25 pm
Man, wasn't the space programme a worthless piece of crap? All we got from it was some pictures and lots of patriotic bragging.And all of this other worthless crap as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off) Damn those space programs and their major technological leaps.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 06:35:19 pm
Post by: Max White on January 04, 2011, 06:37:48 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 04, 2011, 06:39:34 pm
And this is off topic but I have, at least twice, had a dream that I was a Marine who was part of an invasion of a planet.
Like Avatar but without an alternate motive.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 04, 2011, 06:58:33 pm
Well the space program is a rather long term program, it will take time before we get to an alien planet where, because they are not human, human rights do not apply, and therefor slavery is back in.Many human rights documents use the word "people" rather than "human". I imagine we will have learned enough from our past mistakes by that point to not repeat them, and just declare that "people" means "sapients" rather than "humans". In any case, we need not find alien life anyway. I would say that for now, terraforming Earth's moon and Mars are good long-term goals. I recall a NASA estimate claiming that if we were to start right now, we could give Mars a breathable atmosphere by 2098.
Post by: Max White on January 04, 2011, 07:00:00 pm
Well thats my 20 year plan out the window.
Post by: Shade-o on January 05, 2011, 01:10:19 am
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 07:25:33 am
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/01/04/dave-silverman-talking-about-the-religious-scam-with-bill-oeilly/
Post by: Andir on January 05, 2011, 07:46:33 am
So we already have the legal architecture to take care of cival rights in the case of alien slavery?I'm pretty sure the "Human" part of Human Rights is considered to be any intelligent being at this point in time. I'm sure though that you are one of those people who thinks if we repeal the 13th Amendment that people will start selling others into slavery. I think we've moved beyond that point in our society. (Sure, there still are people in servitude in parts of the wold, but I'm almost 98% sure that the "Western World" would not go back down that road.)
Well thats my 20 year plan out the window.
Also, we don't "enslave" the monkeys and make them build us cars, so why would you think we'd do that to an alien life-form?
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 05, 2011, 07:56:00 am
Looking at my normal morning websites, and this gem popped up. It's reasons like this that I try to be vocal about atheism.Oh my. "Tide goes in tide goes out. You can't explain that."
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/01/04/dave-silverman-talking-about-the-religious-scam-with-bill-oeilly/
Too bad he really couldn't, as I wonder how would Mr.O'Reilly react.
Other than that, it's really scary.
Post by: Siquo on January 05, 2011, 07:57:50 am
(Sure, there still are people in servitude in parts of the wold, but I'm almost 98% sure that the "Western World" would not go back down that road.)Commendable, but naive. This stuff still happens a lot in Western countries, especially with illegal immigrants.
Post by: Andir on January 05, 2011, 09:16:02 am
Got a source for that?(Sure, there still are people in servitude in parts of the wold, but I'm almost 98% sure that the "Western World" would not go back down that road.)Commendable, but naive. This stuff still happens a lot in Western countries, especially with illegal immigrants.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 09:53:42 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlaveryGot a source for that?(Sure, there still are people in servitude in parts of the wold, but I'm almost 98% sure that the "Western World" would not go back down that road.)Commendable, but naive. This stuff still happens a lot in Western countries, especially with illegal immigrants.
"the number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 27 million"
Edit: oh wait, that's in the world. hmm...
http://www2.palmbeachpost.com/moderndayslavery/
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 05, 2011, 10:28:01 am
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 10:48:37 am
That president of that atheist place really came off as a jerk. At least in my opinion.You're welcome to your opinion, but remember he's facing off against Bill O'Reilly. He could only get in a few words (which he probably practiced saying before he went on the show), and then he had to fight for the entire interview on whether he was insulting people, while he is simultaneously being loudly insulted.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 05, 2011, 11:00:58 am
I just think it's kinda hard to claim that all religion is a scam and still say you're not insulting anyone.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 11:06:45 am
Oh yeah Bill was being a jerk too. And I am probably being biased against the guest too.Yeah, I do agree with that. Of course I don't really know any polite way to put it. Do you know of a polite way of saying "everything you believe is a lie, and a lot of the members of your organization don't believe it"?
I just think it's kinda hard to claim that all religion is a scam and still say you're not insulting anyone.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 05, 2011, 11:08:22 am
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 11:30:48 am
Sure don't. Another reason why religion (or lack thereof) should be kept as a private matter. No picketing on street corners. For anyone.
This gets into a fuzzy area of whether its' ever a good idea to purposely avoid saying something. I personally try to stay on the side of telling people what I believe. If we get into an argument then only a couple of basic things can happen. I might be right, and plant an idea to correct their idea, thus the other person learns something. I might be wrong, and through superior argument the other person plants an idea in my head to correct what I was thinking. If neither of these things happen, and we are trully on equally shaky ground, then both of us are wiser for considering the other position. Those are all good things. The only thing I see left is if the other person (or myself, I never know) completely rejects all opinions and becomes hostile.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 05, 2011, 01:30:13 pm
I suppose this thread would never have any reason to exist if every person kept their beliefs to themselves.
Post by: Siquo on January 05, 2011, 01:49:36 pm
So I ask an organised-religion-hater: What's the alternative you have to offer to a poor starving (insert any continent name that starts with "A") farmer with no hope of a better life for either him or his children?
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 05, 2011, 01:51:50 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2011, 01:54:07 pm
So I ask an organised-religion-hater: What's the alternative you have to offer to a poor starving (insert any continent name that starts with "A") farmer with no hope of a better life for either him or his children?Somthing that starts with "I" and ends with "nternational aid groups". What are you advocating we do?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 05, 2011, 01:58:06 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 05, 2011, 01:58:38 pm
I'm not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying that organised religion usually finds fertile ground to grow in places where "hope" is far away. If you disagree with organised religion, what do you propose as a substitute?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 05, 2011, 02:07:09 pm
Lol, as if most of them ever see any of those.Some do, and more will over time. Just because we cannot help everybody doesn't mean we should refrain from helping anybody.
Quote
There's a reason poor people are more religious. They apparently need it a lot more, and usually haven't got the education to make up their own religion.I would say that religion flourishes with the poor because it tries to. Poor people are, as the name would suggest, poor. Like you said, they don't recieive as high of an educational standard, but it doesn't have to do with "making up their own religion". It has to do with being exposed to rational arguments about the subject of religion and making their own choices, rather than having the faith of their parents perpetuated upon them and knowing nothing else.
Quote
I'm not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying that organised religion usually finds fertile ground to grow in places where "hope" is far away. If you disagree with organised religion, what do you propose as a substitute?Education and actual help from other people instead of religion-backed promises that almost never pan out and take all of the credit on the off-chance that they do. People in bad situations are capable of helping themselves, they just need to be given the chance.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2011, 04:04:30 pm
Lol, as if most of them ever see any of those. There's a reason poor people are more religious. They apparently need it a lot more, and usually haven't got the education to make up their own religion.Grassroots religion? I mean, most of the people in poor areas did have small, local religions before bigger ones came in and told them theirs was better. Is there any evidence that those with a tribal religion are less happy due to it?
I'm not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying that organised religion usually finds fertile ground to grow in places where "hope" is far away. If you disagree with organised religion, what do you propose as a substitute?
Post by: Siquo on January 05, 2011, 04:52:06 pm
Grassroots religion? I mean, most of the people in poor areas did have small, local religions before bigger ones came in and told them theirs was better. Is there any evidence that those with a tribal religion are less happy due to it?Good point, but how is that not organised, they're still listening to one guy who says he knows it all?
They converted because the bigchurchguys brought schools, hospitals and western wealth with them. Everybody likes gadgets :)
Post by: malimbar04 on January 05, 2011, 05:26:36 pm
It depends on how small you're talking about, and what you consider organized. I would think you could have a loose faith in certain traditions without having a formal structure, with leaders and so forth. It could have no particularly holy heros, and be taught from parents to children. I can't think of any decent-sized religion that has no spiritual leader, but I can imagine their being one.Grassroots religion? I mean, most of the people in poor areas did have small, local religions before bigger ones came in and told them theirs was better. Is there any evidence that those with a tribal religion are less happy due to it?Good point, but how is that not organised, they're still listening to one guy who says he knows it all?
They converted because the bigchurchguys brought schools, hospitals and western wealth with them. Everybody likes gadgets :)
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 05, 2011, 07:50:56 pm
Lol, as if most of them ever see any of those. There's a reason poor people are more religious. They apparently need it a lot more, and usually haven't got the education to make up their own religion.First of all, you tell me what organised religion's purpose actually is, then I'll tell you something that can fulfill that purpose. Right now, you're telling us to find something that does X thing, without telling us what that thing is. What exactly is the purpose of organised religion that you want to prove there's no alternative to?
I'm not "advocating" anything, I'm just saying that organised religion usually finds fertile ground to grow in places where "hope" is far away. If you disagree with organised religion, what do you propose as a substitute?
Post by: Max White on January 05, 2011, 08:15:54 pm
Also, we don't "enslave" the monkeys and make them build us cars, so why would you think we'd do that to an alien life-form?
I have my 20 year plan back!
Post by: Leafsnail on January 05, 2011, 08:20:35 pm
Good point, but how is that not organised, they're still listening to one guy who says he knows it all?Not necessarily. Such beliefs can often just be passed down as a loose cultural idea without any real organisation. I mean, I guess organized religion could eventually emerge, but the point being made is that it isn't necessary to be happy when poor (even if you require the idea of an afterlife to keep you going),
They converted because the bigchurchguys brought schools, hospitals and western wealth with them. Everybody likes gadgets :)
Post by: Siquo on January 06, 2011, 04:31:09 am
First of all, you tell me what organised religion's purpose actually is, then I'll tell you something that can fulfill that purpose. Right now, you're telling us to find something that does X thing, without telling us what that thing is. What exactly is the purpose of organised religion that you want to prove there's no alternative to?Good point. The purpose it serves in this context is solace, hope, and charity through schools and hospitals, and it does so in an organised fashion, on a large scale.
it isn't necessary to be happy when poorAm I reading this right?
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 04:41:04 am
First of all, you tell me what organised religion's purpose actually is, then I'll tell you something that can fulfill that purpose. Right now, you're telling us to find something that does X thing, without telling us what that thing is. What exactly is the purpose of organised religion that you want to prove there's no alternative to?
First of all, not long ago, cherry liqure was involved, so my spelling and logic will get worse from here on in, reguardless, lets carry on!
Organised religion is the best brain washing device known to man kind. Smaller, unorginised religion allows, sometimes even encorages freedom of thought. Freedom of thought allows for choice, and choice allows for people to make the wrong choice. When everybody does the same thing, and thinks the same way, there is no wrong way, just the way. What if that involes things we think of as evil? Well it dosn't matter, because the people involved will ne happy with there code of ethics, and therefor live happy lives, in there blindness.
One could dabate that is is wrong that we have all been brainwashed into thinking clothing is required, so that the threads industry makes money off our 'needs', but we like our clothing, and I'm willing to bet that most of us would feel very uncomfortable without it. The church of pats has become so powerful, people don't even relise they worship it any more, it's just part of life. Every organised religion aspires to be like this, so that a common code of ethics is burnt into our minds, and we never think twice about it, so that one day sins arn't something you restrain yourself from doing because of legal action, it is something you just do not want to do.
Post by: Siquo on January 06, 2011, 04:45:42 am
One could dabate that is is wrong that we have all been brainwashed into thinking clothing is required, so that the threads industry makes money off our 'needs', but we like our clothing, and I'm willing to bet that most of us would feel very uncomfortable without it.People like God, and Church too. Also, it's often a social thing: If you don't conform to the group, you're cast out. And you don't need religion for that attitude.
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 04:51:46 am
People like God, and Church too. Also, it's often a social thing: If you don't conform to the group, you're cast out. And you don't need religion for that attitude.
Religen is important for a quick and easy total conversion, because telling someody they should put on pants because you find it offencive to look at there bare ass is one thing, but telling them that a brutal and angry diety will destroy them if they don't is another. Make people think they will realy suffer for doing the wrong thing, and it all goes down smoother.
Post by: Siquo on January 06, 2011, 04:56:35 am
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 04:59:06 am
Post by: optimumtact on January 06, 2011, 05:05:10 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 05:06:11 am
I often walk around in public with no pants onSpoiler (click to show/hide)
I will destroy you and everybody you care about using a giant russia space lazer. This I beleive to be true.
Post by: Siquo on January 06, 2011, 05:15:24 am
Still, do you feel comfortable in public without your pants? Yes, there is a right answer to this.No, but would a believer be comfortable without God?
Yes, yes, I know this leads to "God is pants".
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 05:25:42 am
Still, do you feel comfortable in public without your pants? Yes, there is a right answer to this.No, but would a believer be comfortable without God?
Yes, yes, I know this leads to "God is pants".
And god is pants. :D Freeking love that quote. Can I get that stiched into a towel?
Although the truth is that ethics is pants, god is people laughing at you for not having your pants on.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 06, 2011, 12:22:56 pm
Am I reading this right?Yeah, but I starting writing one sentence and changed it to another without checking which words I'd removed very carefully. It should be "Have organized religion".
Post by: malimbar04 on January 06, 2011, 02:50:10 pm
Still, do you feel comfortable in public without your pants? Yes, there is a right answer to this.Just for the record, I would love to run around without pants on. There are nudist colonies all around the world full of otherwise very conservative people who do exactly that (but they cost money, and they're not in my area).
It's a shame we live in such sex-negative societies that we can't even run around without pants on if we want to.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 03:37:37 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 06, 2011, 04:21:40 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 05:48:01 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 06, 2011, 05:56:14 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 06, 2011, 06:15:14 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 06, 2011, 06:16:16 pm
The Celts didn't seem to have a problem with nudity, since they'd usually run onto the battlefield completely naked other than a kindof necklace thing.
The Greeks and Romans didn't seem to have a problem with the human form, either.
Post by: optimumtact on January 06, 2011, 07:52:30 pm
I would lay the claim that organised religion in all it's forms was one of the major cultural influences on the western world, from the middle ages and still today.
At CrownofFire: Sure it may have been about not freezing to death, but you could make the case that religion lead to clothing becoming more than just a tool to keep warm. They made it a thing of modesty, to hide your sexuality and body was the right thing to do. I suspect that early cultures like the Celts and Greeks/Romans wore clothes to keep warm and it wasn't such a big deal to hide themselves away (much as Leafsnail said).
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 08:23:06 pm
I really don't see how they can justify racism with that passage and still be such opponents of Judaism.
Post by: optimumtact on January 06, 2011, 09:34:49 pm
I think that this clothes for modesty stuff is indeed a product of Abrahamic religions (optimumtact. Islam is also Abrahamic.) This is especially true with the Haredi Jews.
I really don't see how they can justify racism with that passage and still be such opponents of Judaism.
Thanks for the clarification on that :)
I don't see how they justify it either, but they do. I guess some people just make up their minds about things and will do anything they can to twist other views or statements to their own perspective.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 09:36:55 pm
There's this church near where I live. They interpret the passage of G-d marking Cain as G-d making Cain black. Not cool.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 09:55:56 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 09:57:44 pm
Man! Is that one sexy racist!
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 06, 2011, 10:01:13 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 10:03:52 pm
It is all mine.
Post by: Shade-o on January 06, 2011, 11:08:29 pm
One of his sons, Ham walked in and saw him. Noah then made Canaan, Ham's son, a slave.
The moral of the story is to be really careful around drunks with divine authority.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:09:49 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 06, 2011, 11:10:38 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 06, 2011, 11:11:34 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:11:57 pm
I see it now. Noah, drunk, naked, then a seven foot tall ham walks in.
World's first awkward moment.
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:12:27 pm
The first thing Noah did after the Ark landed was make a vineyard and brew some wine. He then got drunk and fell asleep naked in his tent.
One of his sons, Ham walked in and saw him. Noah then made Canaan, Ham's son, a slave.
The moral of the story is to be really careful around drunks with divine authority.
Sorry, I heard something about nudity, slaves, and alcohol. Is this thread planning the annual forum 'big night out' this year?
Post by: Shade-o on January 06, 2011, 11:31:16 pm
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 06, 2011, 11:31:54 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:33:15 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:35:13 pm
Weekly, actually. Next week we'll be beating up bricklayers and people who have learned more than one language.
Crap, why did I bother to learn the entire C syntax, instead of just C++? Why did I have to be a jerk and study java? Why?
Post by: Shade-o on January 06, 2011, 11:37:26 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:38:17 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:38:59 pm
WHY DO YOU HATE GODHe never returns my calls.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:40:09 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 06, 2011, 11:41:22 pm
I'm frankly surprised Max found his number in a phone book.Yeah, can you give it to me? I have to register a few complaints, and I have a few questions...
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:42:12 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:42:35 pm
I'm frankly surprised Max found his number in a phone book.He has a private number, but I work for a telemarketing company, and one day he answered one of my calls. We go out drinking every friday since then. I like he's freind Freyja, I've been trying for a date with her for a while now.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 11:44:13 pm
If he had a number, people would be spamming him non stop with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:44:28 pm
Excerpt from Max's diary.
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:46:17 pm
"Today was soooo awesome! Me and God went to a bar and got soooooo drunk. And then we beat up Buddha is an alley!"So that's were it went!
Excerpt from Max's diary.
Gentlemen! I propose a holy crusade against Urist is dead tome for the recovery of an artifact most sacred!
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 11:46:42 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:47:52 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:48:44 pm
"Today was soooo awesome! Me and God went to a bar and got soooooo drunk. And then we beat up Buddha is an alley!"So that's were it went!
Excerpt from Max's diary.
Gentlemen! I propose a holy crusade against Urist is dead tome for the recovery of an artifact most sacred!
For my own sake I hope it ends up like the other crusades.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 11:49:39 pm
Then who the hell was that fat guy we beat up?A crazy Hobo who stole God the Hobos Hoboing spot.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 06, 2011, 11:50:02 pm
WHY DO YOU HATE GODI know it's wrong to hate myself, I've heard it before, but sometimes all you humans praiseing me as 'perfect' just makes me feel like I don't live up to it and I begin to hate myself.
That was you Max? Man I was wasted, did we really beat up buddha? I remember it being a fat guy, but buddha was skinny.
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:50:27 pm
For my own sake I hope it ends up like the other crusades.
Forever documented in the most accurate of forms?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:50:48 pm
For my own sake I hope it ends up like the other crusades.
Forever documented in the most accurate of forms?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No you would invade I would starve you to death. Everyone's happy!
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 06, 2011, 11:51:12 pm
Buddha beats you up while the alley watches.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 06, 2011, 11:52:51 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:54:27 pm
Buddha doesn't beat up anyone, he was a pussy. This is why I prefer my worshipers over his, all that 'peace' and 'harm no liveing thing' nonsense.
Budda was the first of a long line of kick ass people who liked to beat others up.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 06, 2011, 11:55:32 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:55:54 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on January 06, 2011, 11:56:26 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 06, 2011, 11:57:12 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 06, 2011, 11:58:05 pm
Post by: Max White on January 06, 2011, 11:59:56 pm
WHY DO YOU HATE BUDDA
Fix'd.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 07, 2011, 12:00:18 am
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 12:01:29 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 07, 2011, 12:02:59 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 07, 2011, 12:04:23 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 07, 2011, 12:04:58 am
Quote
Fine. I will be prepared. You may have.... Some sort of Pope(?) but I have the most important advantage of all!
A well equipped army with a sufficient logistics network led by competent officers?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 07, 2011, 12:05:33 am
QuoteFine. I will be prepared. You may have.... Some sort of Pope(?) but I have the most important advantage of all!
A well equipped army with a sufficient logistics network led by competent officers?
No. 36 thousand square miles to hide in.
Post by: Shade-o on January 07, 2011, 12:07:20 am
You can fight, though. Just having some soldiers around would be enough to stymie his will.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 07, 2011, 12:07:52 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 07, 2011, 12:09:06 am
Post by: Bauglir on January 07, 2011, 12:38:03 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 07, 2011, 12:57:37 am
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 05:14:33 am
Not that this isn't preferable to the other typical derail, but does anyone have any actual on-topic discussion?It's the most amusing one yet :)
If I wanted to speak to one of my dorfs in DF, I'd probably make a dwarven avatar, and phrase stuff so he'd understand. Even then, I can't be sure that the concepts I want to convey make sense to him. I might try again a few more times ("No, you got it wrong!") and then give up. Maybe that's what God did to us. Just raise his arms and go all "whatever, I'm going to regen another universe" and occasionally checks in to see what we're up to.
If God made us all, are we all Artifical Life?
Post by: eerr on January 07, 2011, 06:21:25 am
Pope? Pope!? POPE!?I AM YOUR LORD GOD! IT IS I WHO GIVES THE POPE HIS 'POWER' ON EARTH!
So you are the puppet of someone in a pointy hat, and don't actually do anything?
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 06:23:28 am
So you are the puppet of someone in a pointy hat, and don't actually do anything?
*In KaguroDraven's voice*
I'm not a puppet, I'm a real god.
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 07:15:32 am
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 07:21:13 am
*Ba du, tish!*
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 07, 2011, 08:33:55 am
Not that this isn't preferable to the other typical derail, but does anyone have any actual on-topic discussion?It's the most amusing one yet :)
If I wanted to speak to one of my dorfs in DF, I'd probably make a dwarven avatar, and phrase stuff so he'd understand. Even then, I can't be sure that the concepts I want to convey make sense to him. I might try again a few more times ("No, you got it wrong!") and then give up. Maybe that's what God did to us. Just raise his arms and go all "whatever, I'm going to regen another universe" and occasionally checks in to see what we're up to.
If God made us all, are we all Artifical Life?
Yes. Yes we are.
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 08:45:49 am
It's the most amusing one yet :)
If I wanted to speak to one of my dorfs in DF, I'd probably make a dwarven avatar, and phrase stuff so he'd understand. Even then, I can't be sure that the concepts I want to convey make sense to him. I might try again a few more times ("No, you got it wrong!") and then give up. Maybe that's what God did to us. Just raise his arms and go all "whatever, I'm going to regen another universe" and occasionally checks in to see what we're up to.
If God made us all, are we all Artifical Life?
I hope not! I tend to delete my worlds once I'm bored with them.
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 09:45:56 am
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2011, 12:04:21 pm
If I wanted to speak to one of my dorfs in DF, I'd probably make a dwarven avatar, and phrase stuff so he'd understand. Even then, I can't be sure that the concepts I want to convey make sense to him. I might try again a few more times ("No, you got it wrong!") and then give up. Maybe that's what God did to us. Just raise his arms and go all "whatever, I'm going to regen another universe" and occasionally checks in to see what we're up to....Wouldn't that be his fault for creating us in a way that we can't understand his message?
If God made us all, are we all Artifical Life?Depends. If we take artificial to be "man made", I'd say no.
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 01:29:41 pm
...Wouldn't that be his fault for creating us in a way that we can't understand his message?If he would have created us to be able to understand him completely, we'd be her. We would be copies of it, rendering the whole point moot.
Quote
Depends. If we take artificial to be "man made", I'd say no.Stuff made by aliens is also artificial. I actually find the whole term "artificial" kind of artificial. Humans are part of nature, too, so everything we make is natural, to me.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 07, 2011, 01:35:31 pm
Stuff made by aliens is also artificial. I actually find the whole term "artificial" kind of artificial. Humans are part of nature, too, so everything we make is natural, to me.Wasn't the perceived artificialness of the universe the basis of the watchmaker argument? Because I thought you were supporting it. Do correct me if I'm mistaking you with somebody else.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 07, 2011, 01:52:33 pm
Depends. If we take artificial to be "man made", I'd say no.
Except man occurs in nature so we aren't artificial life in a sense.
But because I believe that without G-d then nothing would occur in nature I guess that nothing is natural. Although I'm probably thinking too much into this.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2011, 02:43:41 pm
If he would have created us to be able to understand him completely, we'd be her. We would be copies of it, rendering the whole point moot.Not true. We wouldn't have to understand God completely, just enough so we could understand his message. I can read and understand a book without being a clone of the author.
Stuff made by aliens is also artificial. I actually find the whole term "artificial" kind of artificial. Humans are part of nature, too, so everything we make is natural, to me.I think "artificial" as "man made" is actually fine. The problem arises more from having "natural" as opposed to it.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 07, 2011, 03:34:50 pm
If you replace "infinitely powerful and all-knowing" with "arbitrarily highly powerful and knowledgeable", then the problem is fixed. Maybe he put in a few simple messages, us loyal programs did more or less what he expected, he had fun, then he went off to play a star trek universe. I'm sure toady expects his dwarfs to do more or less what he programmed them to do, but he's not intending to have a deep conversation with the things.If I wanted to speak to one of my dorfs in DF, I'd probably make a dwarven avatar, and phrase stuff so he'd understand. Even then, I can't be sure that the concepts I want to convey make sense to him. I might try again a few more times ("No, you got it wrong!") and then give up. Maybe that's what God did to us. Just raise his arms and go all "whatever, I'm going to regen another universe" and occasionally checks in to see what we're up to....Wouldn't that be his fault for creating us in a way that we can't understand his message?
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 04:00:10 pm
But you're both human. Would you understand a book written by a dog (if it could write in english)? Probably. Would you be able to write a book that that same dog could understand? Probably not. It has no idea of a lot of human concepts, and might probably understand half of it and just interpret the other half in his own worldview (and that's a safe estimate). It's the interpretations where it goes wrong, as they differ wildly and no-one knows which is right, if any of them is at all.If he would have created us to be able to understand him completely, we'd be her. We would be copies of it, rendering the whole point moot.Not true. We wouldn't have to understand God completely, just enough so we could understand his message. I can read and understand a book without being a clone of the author.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2011, 04:03:24 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 04:22:57 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 07, 2011, 06:03:37 pm
Post by: malimbar04 on January 07, 2011, 06:45:16 pm
But you're both human. Would you understand a book written by a dog (if it could write in english)? Probably. Would you be able to write a book that that same dog could understand? Probably not. It has no idea of a lot of human concepts, and might probably understand half of it and just interpret the other half in his own worldview (and that's a safe estimate). It's the interpretations where it goes wrong, as they differ wildly and no-one knows which is right, if any of them is at all.If he would have created us to be able to understand him completely, we'd be her. We would be copies of it, rendering the whole point moot.Not true. We wouldn't have to understand God completely, just enough so we could understand his message. I can read and understand a book without being a clone of the author.
If a dog could read english, I could definately write a book that they could understand. Heck, they don't speak english, we didn't create them, and they still can be relatively easily trained. Our communication isn't deep (by our level), but they can definately understand soemthing if we know how to say it.
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 06:56:18 pm
That dosn't mean I can do what they do. Understanding and being are not the same thing. Interesting fact:
The entire human genome could fit on a flash drive. The human mind, on the other hand, is vastly greater, and although it's size is debated, a few terrabytes should be close. Yet the genome must understand the brain in order to build it, no? Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.
Post by: Siquo on January 07, 2011, 07:05:21 pm
Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.Can it? Knowing my genome still won't tell you what I'm thinking right now.
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 07:06:37 pm
Can it? Knowing my genome still won't tell you what I'm thinking right now.
Ah, but if you knew what I was thinking right now, you would understand something greater then yourself! :P
Post by: Leafsnail on January 07, 2011, 07:07:56 pm
They just encode. Think of them as little zip files :P.
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 07:14:18 pm
Genomes don't "understand" anything. I'd say that, even metaphorically, it's probably a step too far.
They just encode. Think of them as little zip files :P.
That's not right. A genome represents process, while a zip represents data. Totally different.
Post by: optimumtact on January 07, 2011, 08:40:40 pm
Stuff made by aliens is also artificial. I actually find the whole term "artificial" kind of artificial. Humans are part of nature, too, so everything we make is natural, to me.Wasn't the perceived artificialness of the universe the basis of the watchmaker argument? Because I thought you were supporting it. Do correct me if I'm mistaking you with somebody else.
This is interesting, this guy did a video about the watchmaker argument, let me see if I can dredge it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)
here it is, very interesting indeed.
Post by: optimumtact on January 07, 2011, 08:43:45 pm
I can understand a computer. I can look at a computer and know the logic gates interact, how certain elements come together for certain things, how this translates into machine code, and how that translates into higher programing languages, that I can also understand. I dare say that with a text book or two (Think of these as the bibe) and enough time, I could rebuild the computer I am currently working on. I understand computers!
That dosn't mean I can do what they do. Understanding and being are not the same thing. Interesting fact:
The entire human genome could fit on a flash drive. The human mind, on the other hand, is vastly greater, and although it's size is debated, a few terrabytes should be close. Yet the genome must understand the brain in order to build it, no? Something can not only understand something else without being it, but something can understand something greater then itself.
I think it comes down to the abstract nature of our world, for example, if I were to put a PC together from the usual parts (i.e. the hard drive, ram, dvd drive and so on) I don't have to know how those objects work, I can just put them together in the way laid out in the instruction manual. Therefore the genome doesn't have to know how the brain works, all it has to do is create the structure that allows the brain to function.
On that note, it's actually quite amazing just how much abstraction is a major part of everything we do, for example, if I want to use some electricity I don't have to know how it works, all I need to be able to do is operate the interface :)
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 09:04:53 pm
And your right, a genome does not ned to know how a brain works, and just because I have Siquo's dna dosn't mean I know what he is thinking, and just because I can build a car dosn't mean I can drive one, but these examples use calculation, rather then understanding.
Calculation != understanding.
Post by: optimumtact on January 07, 2011, 09:15:04 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 07, 2011, 09:48:51 pm
Post by: optimumtact on January 07, 2011, 09:57:47 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 07, 2011, 10:00:58 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 07, 2011, 10:11:48 pm
Post by: optimumtact on January 07, 2011, 10:12:39 pm
Post by: Max White on January 07, 2011, 10:13:37 pm
What is the current debate? I want to get into this again.
God does not explain himself because he can no understand him, because he is greater then ourselves, and one thing can not understand something greater then itself.
However, thats not exactly how the theory goes down. One thing can understand something else greater then itself, but not calculate something greater then itself.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 07, 2011, 11:48:19 pm
And a weakness to iron weaponry. That's got to be a big part of it.
Only if god is chaos in The Saga of Recluce.
Post by: Shade-o on January 08, 2011, 04:29:50 am
Post by: Siquo on January 08, 2011, 05:50:16 am
One thing can understand something else greater then itself, but not calculate something greater then itself.Then what do you mean by "understand"? My girlfriend "understands" a computer in the sense that she can make it do what she wants to, but every time I start about how it works internally she just goes glassy-eyed and zones out :P
And even you, do you really understand how semi-conductors work on a quantum level? Or even smaller than that?
To get back to being Socratic: "Understanding" is just an assumption.
Post by: Max White on January 08, 2011, 06:17:59 am
Were I to discover another way to build a logic gate without a transistor, then I could easily rebuild the same computer with the same logic gates, without transistors, so logic gates are fundemental, transistors are not. This is why the photon powered computer is still a computer in the common meaning of the term, despite the fact that it lacts the electrons that computers depends on. So I can understand a computer without understanding an electron.
To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).
Post by: Siquo on January 08, 2011, 06:38:57 am
To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.
Post by: Max White on January 08, 2011, 06:41:08 am
Another example would be that we now have a very good understanding of evolution. We made predictions about mutation, and inherited propertys, and then when we found DNA it supported a lot of our predictions. Darwins theory has been refined to the point were it isn't going anywere fast, but we are far from being able to predict what path evolution will now take.
Post by: Siquo on January 08, 2011, 08:03:00 am
But I wasn't saying that at all. I couldn't predict what number my computer would produce... I could just make sence of the process it took in getting there.Then "understanding" means nothing. It just means you have some basic grasp on the world, from which you could theoretically recreate the entire world. I'm in the process of doing that (building a sim), and although I understand the basic rules themselves, I have no illusions that I understand how they work together. It's saying you understand psychology because you know how a neuron works.
Another example would be that we now have a very good understanding of evolution. We made predictions about mutation, and inherited propertys, and then when we found DNA it supported a lot of our predictions. Darwins theory has been refined to the point were it isn't going anywere fast, but we are far from being able to predict what path evolution will now take.
Post by: Max White on January 08, 2011, 08:42:36 am
Post by: lemon10 on January 08, 2011, 09:00:57 am
And a weakness to iron weaponry. That's got to be a big part of it.
Only if god is chaos in The Saga of Recluce.
Well, I meant the one in The Bible, but that one too, I guess.I may be wrong, but i think he is referring to this part of the bible:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron
Therefore iron>god
Post by: Andir on January 08, 2011, 09:34:19 am
Psychology. Just because you may not have studied it in depth doesn't mean "we" do not "understand" and "predict" human behavior. I never thought I'd enjoy those classes, but they were some of the most thought provoking and insightful classes I took.To calculate something, however, requires me to be able to predict what outcome a computer will produce. If I build a computer that only multiplied two numbers (And doing this with analog is a walk in the park compaired to digital, but possible in both) and then put in the numbers 2264567 and 948576 I could understand what the computer was doing to produce it's outcome, but I couldn't predict what outcome it would produce (Not without a pen and paper anyway, but then I'm using additional hardware apart from just my brain).This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 08, 2011, 11:04:57 am
This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.You've kindof deflected from the point here, though. Even if there's no way to understand the actual nature of God, it should still be possible for us to understand a message if he puts it to us in the right way.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 08, 2011, 11:44:28 am
Or at least know that the message doesn't fit the current way we think about the world. If god explained something even relatively directly to a human, through another human, it should be clear that the message could not have come from the human anyways.This is exactly what I was getting to. To you, "understanding" is being able to predict its behaviour. That's fine, but by that definition, we can't even understand our fellow humans, let alone God.You've kindof deflected from the point here, though. Even if there's no way to understand the actual nature of God, it should still be possible for us to understand a message if he puts it to us in the right way.
Let's go back to dwarf fortress as an example. If you were to possess a dwarf, or give the manager a specific instruction, it should be apparent that the manager never would have done the exact same on his own. Other dwarves have an idea of how dwarves think (yes! I want a elephant bone gate!, though I'll settle for an iron one if you'll give me that, I like iron gates). However, if you instead ask the dwarf to build a iron short sword, which he would never have built on his own, then it could become apparent that there is an outside intelligence acting on it.
However, in our world, we only see people behaving exactly as we would expect them to, considering psychology and culture as we currently know them. Leviticus has laws that make absolutely no sense because they fit the ancient culture that they came from. They do not make sense by what we know now in our modern cultures.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 08, 2011, 03:51:09 pm
I may be wrong, but i think he is referring to this part of the bible:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron
Therefore iron>god
That was the Israelites that could not conquer them because of the chariots. They were just on foot.
Post by: Shade-o on January 09, 2011, 12:00:36 am
Besides, chariots were stupid easy to counter and were only good on very flat plains. That they were used in a valley and won despite all this...
However, if God was making his people win without them having any actual capacity as soldiers, that would explain why they crumple as soon as he's not looking.
Wait, maybe God is weak to valleys?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 09, 2011, 12:04:59 am
Post by: Max White on January 09, 2011, 12:06:14 am
Whether or not we understand 'god' is irrelevant if he isn't real. You two should stop splitting hairs.
Well that sounds ridiculously fun.
(http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/alicepic/disney-movie/march-hare-1.jpg)
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 09, 2011, 12:31:22 am
Wait, maybe God is weak to valleys?No, dude, "chariots of iron" - it's a prophecy. He basically says that he will be helping his people until cars appear on earth(valley=gravity well. Obvious, really). That's why there are no more miracles today, and that's why atheism rears it's ugly head.
Post by: Shade-o on January 09, 2011, 12:37:29 am
Post by: Andir on January 09, 2011, 01:59:38 am
...and that's why atheism rears it's ugly head.I wouldn't call it ugly... I find it refreshing to be able to view the world as a cool mass of randomness evolved.
Post by: Shades on January 09, 2011, 09:05:51 am
Wait, maybe God is weak to valleys?No, dude, "chariots of iron" - it's a prophecy. He basically says that he will be helping his people until cars appear on earth(valley=gravity well. Obvious, really). That's why there are no more miracles today, and that's why atheism rears it's ugly head.
There are just as many miracles now as there ever have been.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 12:26:24 pm
But yes I believe that there are indeed miracles. Although not as many due to a lack of a need for G-d to prove his existence and power.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 09, 2011, 12:27:26 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 12:28:52 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on January 09, 2011, 12:31:29 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 12:34:34 pm
Would be any consolation if I told you I think your a great person?
Yes. Yes it would.
Ah, but it was specifically stated that if the Lord were not 'with them', they would lose. When the Lord was supporting them, they enjoyed continuous victories, except for when they faced chariots of iron which directly countered the divine power.
Besides, chariots were stupid easy to counter and were only good on very flat plains. That they were used in a valley and won despite all this...
However, if God was making his people win without them having any actual capacity as soldiers, that would explain why they crumple as soon as he's not looking.
Wait, maybe God is weak to valleys?
I'm gonna guess that G-d didn't play that big of a roll in the taking of Israel than people think since several of the tribes lost. And I guess they would crumple if he wasn't looking.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 09, 2011, 01:53:16 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 09, 2011, 02:08:52 pm
Post by: Andir on January 09, 2011, 03:02:13 pm
Wait, what about cars means God can't help us anymore?Convenience, I guess. It gives "a way out" of the burden of proof. ;)
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 09, 2011, 03:08:32 pm
Wait, what about cars means God can't help us anymore?There are other informative prophecies in the Bible. For example, you can learn that David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist (http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/).
Quote from: Rev 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns
Quote from: interpretation
The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights.
The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers.
Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 09, 2011, 03:12:58 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 09, 2011, 03:18:29 pm
And the sons of Adam jumped Him and handcuffed Him, and put Him in a cage of Iron, where He is forced to ride a bicycle attached to a power generator, thus providing electricity for the whole world, else He is denied His daily rations of prayers.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 09, 2011, 03:30:53 pm
And on that day, God appeared before the sons of Adam and said: "I am thy Lord!"But if he escapes, it will be a deus ex machina.
And the sons of Adam jumped Him and handcuffed Him, and put Him in a cage of Iron, where He is forced to ride a bicycle attached to a power generator, thus providing electricity for the whole world, else He is denied His daily rations of prayers.
Post by: Shade-o on January 09, 2011, 05:20:40 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 05:31:18 pm
And on that day, God appeared before the sons of Adam and said: "I am thy Lord!"
And the sons of Adam jumped Him and handcuffed Him, and put Him in a cage of Iron, where He is forced to ride a bicycle attached to a power generator, thus providing electricity for the whole world, else He is denied His daily rations of prayers.
This just got the Urist seal of approval.
Post by: Andir on January 09, 2011, 06:33:56 pm
I don't believe that that could happen.Sure it can, God created for himself a bicycle generator that he himself cannot escape.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 07:06:50 pm
I think a possible interpretation of that quote would be that Christians were the intended end result of Judaism.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 09, 2011, 07:08:59 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 09, 2011, 07:33:51 pm
Post by: Max White on January 09, 2011, 08:14:46 pm
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 09, 2011, 08:25:52 pm
This just got the Urist seal of approval.don't you mean this?
And on that day, G-d appeared before the sons of Ad-m and said: "I am thy L-rd!"
And the sons of Ad-m jumped H-m and handcuffed H-m, and put H-m in a cage of Iron, where H- is forced to ride a b-cycle attached to a p-wer g-nerator, thus providing el-ctricity for the whole w-rld, else H- is denied H-s daily r-tions of pr-yers.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 08:41:16 pm
This just got the Urist seal of approval.don't you mean this?And on that day, G-d appeared before the sons of Ad-m and said: "I am thy L-rd!"
And the sons of Ad-m jumped H-m and handcuffed H-m, and put H-m in a cage of Iron, where H- is forced to ride a b-cycle attached to a p-wer g-nerator, thus providing el-ctricity for the whole w-rld, else H- is denied H-s daily r-tions of pr-yers.
I don't worship a bike.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 09, 2011, 08:49:47 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 09, 2011, 09:47:50 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 09, 2011, 09:55:35 pm
Post by: Max White on January 09, 2011, 10:10:03 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: fqllve on January 09, 2011, 10:13:03 pm
Is mickey mouse god?
No, he's the Moussiah. Walt Disney is god.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 09, 2011, 10:13:50 pm
Post by: Andir on January 10, 2011, 12:14:04 am
The whole idea of relics is stupid. It really couldn't be holy just because it touched Jesus.But if Jesus pissed on it... watch out e-bay.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 10, 2011, 12:20:20 pm
But they are a testament to the industrious nature of the Lord and His willingness to provide for humanity! How else could there be so many identical relics found over thousand of years?True. I mean, how could Jesus have so many foreskins otherwise?
Post by: Eugenitor on January 10, 2011, 12:22:29 pm
I think a possible interpretation of that quote would be that Christians were the intended end result of Judaism.
Wow, and I thought the Jews were being blamed for everything before...
Post by: Zrk2 on January 10, 2011, 04:20:24 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 04:21:27 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 10, 2011, 05:07:25 pm
Oops, one word post.
Post by: Shades on January 10, 2011, 06:20:03 pm
There are other informative prophecies in the Bible. For example, you can learn that David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist (http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/).
This would explain a great deal...
Sorry Urist I'm pretty aggressively atheist. At least until some provides some kind of indication of a god, then I'll review my position. Of course if I ever got to the point where a god was at all possible, or even, likely then there would have to be a serious discussion with her about the mess she causes.
Speaking of prophecy it's fairly shocking how many can be found in any large book, especially ones in vaguely translated languages. I also read that some researcher found moby dick very accurate, although google is not being helpful today.
Sci-fi authors have of course been remarkably accurate with predictions, right down to the name things are call. Of course that is really more dictation than prophecy. Still tomato tomato
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 06:50:26 pm
Sorry Urist I'm pretty aggressively atheist. At least until some provides some kind of indication of a god, then I'll review my position. Of course if I ever got to the point where a god was at all possible, or even, likely then there would have to be a serious discussion with her about the mess she causes.
I personally think that no matter what happens G-d is in control and no matter what happens it's the best thing that could have happened while following the rules that G-d has set for the world.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 10, 2011, 06:52:41 pm
I personally think that no matter what happens G-d is in control and no matter what happens it's the best thing that could have happened while following the rules that G-d has set for the world.
Delusion has never made so much sense.
Also, what's with taking the 'o' out of God?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 06:54:16 pm
Well the idea is that the personal name is of G-d is too holy to say or write. So G-d is also too holy to write down.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 10, 2011, 06:57:28 pm
Ergo, God is everyone.
Therefore everyones name is too holy to write.
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 06:58:36 pm
It's a Jewish thing. Read about Kabbalah or somethin' along those lines.
Well the idea is that the personal name is of G-d is too holy to say or write. So G-d is also too holy to write down.
Why would his name be in English? Especially why would his name be in modern English?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2011, 07:00:09 pm
God is everywhere.I'm (kind of) pantheistic, and even then it doesn't work like that.
Ergo, God is everyone.
Therefore everyones name is too holy to write.
Of course, I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, so whatever.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 10, 2011, 07:01:14 pm
God is every place.
God is in your head right now run run away.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 07:01:46 pm
You can't write down the personal name of G-d. And G-d is really holy too.
God is everywhere.I'm (kind of) pantheistic, and even then it doesn't work like that.
Ergo, God is everyone.
Therefore everyones name is too holy to write.
Of course, I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, so whatever.
*Sniffs air* I smell persecution coming.
Post by: Eugenitor on January 10, 2011, 07:03:33 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2011, 07:04:57 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 07:05:28 pm
That was a typo.
You can't write down the personal name of G-d. And G-d is really holy too.
But its just some random word in some random barbarian language that just happens to be the current lingua franca. I mean, even in the Tanakh it's only the personal name of god that can't be written. Elohim, El, Adonai, etc. All those are cool to say. Unless you're just trying to mimic the vowelless writing of Hebrew.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 10, 2011, 07:07:35 pm
Well the idea is that the personal name is of G-d is too holy to say or write. So G-d is also too holy to write down.
... I'm not even.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 07:08:12 pm
Really? I always thought it was Yahweh or Jehovah, depending on who you asked. (But remember, in Latin, Jehovah begins with an I!)
The first one is correct. Although the holiness "spills over".
That was a typo.
You can't write down the personal name of G-d. And G-d is really holy too.
But its just some random word in some random barbarian language that just happens to be the current lingua franca. I mean, even in the Tanakh it's only the personal name of god that can't be written. Elohim, El, Adonai, etc. All those are cool to say. Unless you're just trying to mimic the vowelless writing of Hebrew.
Barbarian language? You must be crazy!
Well the idea is that the personal name is of G-d is too holy to say or write. So G-d is also too holy to write down.
... I'm not even.
...Shut up...
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2011, 07:10:57 pm
Persecution for what?God is everywhere.I'm (kind of) pantheistic, and even then it doesn't work like that.
Ergo, God is everyone.
Therefore everyones name is too holy to write.
Of course, I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, so whatever.
*Sniffs air* I smell persecution coming.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 07:12:06 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 10, 2011, 07:13:00 pm
Post by: Eugenitor on January 10, 2011, 07:13:52 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 07:14:23 pm
But its just some random word in some random barbarian language that just happens to be the current lingua franca. I mean, even in the Tanakh it's only the personal name of god that can't be written. Elohim, El, Adonai, etc. All those are cool to say. Unless you're just trying to mimic the vowelless writing of Hebrew.
Barbarian language? You must be crazy!
Not in the slightest. I'm sure the ancient Romans would agree with me about the barbaric nature of English.
Anyway, my point was that it's not even distantly related to Hebrew. There's nothing holy about English, and there's absolutely nothing holy about the noun god anymore than the word deity is holy.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2011, 07:17:48 pm
You. Or at least explaining you're beliefs another dozen times.Still doesn't explain why I would be persecuted.
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 07:35:16 pm
Although I suspect we're on opposite sides of the pantheistic spectrum.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2011, 07:39:36 pm
I'm not gonna persecute him, I'm gonna high five him!I'm also (kind of) panentheistic, so maybe. It's some weird combination of the two that doesn't really make any sense to anybody who doesn't believe in something close to it.
Although I suspect we're on opposite sides of the pantheistic spectrum.
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 07:54:35 pm
But yeah, we are, since I'm a naturalist.
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 08:10:41 pm
It's unlikely that it meant elemental iron, as that's unsuitable for applications such as military equipment and no self-respecting army would use that in place of bronze. So the metal used was a form of steel, iron with impurities included.
There are two ways that this could have stopped God:
By being an artificial alloy, it represents the progress of humanity and independence from the natural, divinely-inspired world. However, bronze is even more unnatural, and there is never any mention of that thwarting the divine despite being used by everyone.
By being a more advanced alloy, it represents the progress of humanity from simplistic roots. Bronze is easier to work and was discovered earlier, while effective iron-working was created by hard work and discovery over a long period.
The second option makes more sense. In that way it shows that the new, progressive empires were more powerful than the ancient, shackled-to-tradition peoples who are dependent on their god to hand-guide them through everything.
I mean, it sure wasn't the chariots that ensured victory. Unless the Jewish army was really terrible.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 10, 2011, 08:21:11 pm
Thinking more on Jewish God's weakness to Iron.
It's unlikely that it meant elemental iron, as that's unsuitable for applications such as military equipment and no self-respecting army would use that in place of bronze. So the metal used was a form of steel, iron with impurities included.
There are two ways that this could have stopped God:
By being an artificial alloy, it represents the progress of humanity and independence from the natural, divinely-inspired world. However, bronze is even more unnatural, and there is never any mention of that thwarting the divine despite being used by everyone.
By being a more advanced alloy, it represents the progress of humanity from simplistic roots. Bronze is easier to work and was discovered earlier, while effective iron-working was created by hard work and discovery over a long period.
The second option makes more sense. In that way it shows that the new, progressive empires were more powerful than the ancient, shackled-to-tradition peoples who are dependent on their god to hand-guide them through everything.
This, this can be extrapolated to every religion facing technological advancement ever.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 08:21:50 pm
If you can't say God... don't you end up having problems with praying?
I can say it I just don't write it down because it's doomed to be erased.
But its just some random word in some random barbarian language that just happens to be the current lingua franca. I mean, even in the Tanakh it's only the personal name of god that can't be written. Elohim, El, Adonai, etc. All those are cool to say. Unless you're just trying to mimic the vowelless writing of Hebrew.
Barbarian language? You must be crazy!
Not in the slightest. I'm sure the ancient Romans would agree with me about the barbaric nature of English.
Anyway, my point was that it's not even distantly related to Hebrew. There's nothing holy about English, and there's absolutely nothing holy about the noun god anymore than the word deity is holy.
I thought you were calling Hebrew barbaric.
You. Or at least explaining you're beliefs another dozen times.Still doesn't explain why I would be persecuted.
I was joking and it didn't make sense.
Thinking more on Jewish God's weakness to Iron.
It's unlikely that it meant elemental iron, as that's unsuitable for applications such as military equipment and no self-respecting army would use that in place of bronze. So the metal used was a form of steel, iron with impurities included.
There are two ways that this could have stopped God:
By being an artificial alloy, it represents the progress of humanity and independence from the natural, divinely-inspired world. However, bronze is even more unnatural, and there is never any mention of that thwarting the divine despite being used by everyone.
By being a more advanced alloy, it represents the progress of humanity from simplistic roots. Bronze is easier to work and was discovered earlier, while effective iron-working was created by hard work and discovery over a long period.
The second option makes more sense. In that way it shows that the new, progressive empires were more powerful than the ancient, shackled-to-tradition peoples who are dependent on their god to hand-guide them through everything.
Iron is never said to thwart G-d either.
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 08:24:12 pm
Quote
Young's Literal Translation
Judges 1:19
and Jehovah is with Judah, and he occupieth the hill-country, but not to dispossess the inhabitants of the valley, for they
have chariots of iron.
American Standard Version
Judges 1:19
And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Amplified Bible
Judges 1:19
The Lord was with Judah, and [Judah] drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, but he could not drive out those
inhabiting the [difficult] valley basin because they had chariots of iron.
Darby Bible
Judges 1:19
And Jehovah was with Judah; and he took possession of the hill-country, for he did not dispossess the inhabitants of
the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
English Standard Version
Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of theu hill country, but he could not drive out the
inhabitants of the plain because they hadv chariots of iron.
King James Version
Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
New Revised Standard Bible
Judges 1:19
The LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the
plain, because they had chariots of iron.
21st Century King James Version
Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of
the valley because they had chariots of iron.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Juda, and he possessed the hill country: but was not able to destroy the inhabitants of the valley,
because they had many chariots armed with scythes.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 10, 2011, 08:28:27 pm
Hm, so god is everything and also inside everything? Yeah, that's pretty strange. I always figured the two were mutually exclusive.Gods, actually. And sort of. They're both immanent and transcendent (transcendence and immanence are actually defined as the opposites of eachother, but they're not mutually exclusive). The most basic way to describe is that the gods are everything, they're in everything, and they surpass everything. It's sort of some weird combination of a bunch of different views.
But yeah, we are, since I'm a naturalist.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 10, 2011, 09:02:37 pm
CitationsMan, you're nitpicking on some passage in bible, while forcing an interpretation that is hardly sensible. The first time aroung it was just a low-brow joke, but you just keep on doing it, with an apparent intent of just pissing off our resident believer.
"And lord was with Judah" doesn't explictly say that he stood there on the battlefield(as I'm sure you know, but just to silence any future doubts), it's just a way of saying that he was doing his conquests out of religious inspiration. Or, you could see this as a way of praising him for his achievments - to get a similar result with more mundane conotations, substitute "luck" for "lord".
Now, I'm not saying that pissing off the believers is an entirely undesirable thing to do in an Atheism thread, but I do think that you should at least use better tools than dodgy interpretations of their holy texts.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 10, 2011, 09:09:58 pm
"And lord was with Judah" doesn't explictly say that he stood there on the battlefield(as I'm sure you know, but just to silence any future doubts), it's just a way of saying that he was doing his conquests out of religious inspiration. Or, you could see this as a way of praising him for his achievments - to get a similar result with more mundane conotations, substitute "luck" for "lord".So, any amount religious inspiration can be defeated with cars?
Fine with me.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 10, 2011, 09:21:21 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 09:23:50 pm
Quote
Numbers 14:42-43
42 Do not go up, because the Lord is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies,
43 for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the Lord, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.”
Deuteronomy 20:1-4
1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.
2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army.
3 He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them.
4 For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”
Exodus 14
26. And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
27. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
28. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
So it's not the presence of chariots, but iron chariots that specifically defeats God.
And the presence and power of God was what gave them victories.
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 09:28:33 pm
And remember that Judah was the aggressor, they had to march down into the valley to drive them out. Most likely they got cut to pieces.
QuoteNumbers 14:42-43
Deuteronomy 20:1-4
Exodus 14
So it's not the presence of chariots, but iron chariots that specifically defeats God.
But Jd 1:19 is first speaking only of the tribe of Judah. Secondly, Judges takes place looooong after any of those.
Do you have any references to specific battles against chariots that were won? Or any references to Israelite or specifically Judean charioteers?
Post by: Andir on January 10, 2011, 09:39:22 pm
If you can't say God... don't you end up having problems with praying?
Quote
Dear ... um ... you,
I wish my brother would find ... um ... you so he will stop his life of crime. I tried to tell him about all the great things you do and he kept asking, "Who are you talking about? The mayor?" You are making it really hard for me to preach your religion because I can't tell people who you are. Can you please lift the restriction on saying your name so that I may begin my sermons?
On second thought, I like the idea that nobody can say Gad's name. It's awesome and we can also come up with other letters to put in Gjd's name to fill the blanks left by those that can't type it.
Post by: scriver on January 10, 2011, 10:03:09 pm
Uidtome, I'm sorry of all the questions make you uncomfortable, but I am actually really curius as to what you mean by this?If you can't say God... don't you end up having problems with praying?
I can say it I just don't write it down because it's doomed to be erased.
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 10:21:25 pm
They would flip over if they hit a rock or hole, get bogged down in mud, lose control on slopes, have poor manoeuvrability, and leave the horses vulnerable to nearly all the attacks, which would also flip the chariot. In their time they had a role that they filled, but they were superceded by either agile cavalry or even more lumbering elephants.
The only lasting legacy was chariot racing, the incredibly lethal racing sport where they travelled in a circle on a flat track.
If an army does not have the equipment, training or strategic skill to counter them in any number of ways (not making the battlefield a perfectly flat plain, stepping to the side when they charge, pointing weapons at them...) then that does not bode well for their other ventures.
Judges 1:19 being set after shouldn't mean anything, as the rule "Fight with God and you will win, or else" is long-established by then. When they lost it was because they lost faith or otherwise annoyed God, but in 1:19 they specifically had God on their side helping them win, until they were beaten specifically because of the presence of iron chariots. Chariots were good if used by masterful tactician in perfect circumstances, and iron is as stabby as bronze, but it is odd that a common, severely handicapped weapon of war and a particular material that they were made of were enough to stop the army and/or divine being that had just conquered half the Middle East.
To me, the most intriguing part is that the Bible includes this defeat of God. I mean, of all the things to get purged and mistranslated away, this thing stays in?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 10:34:05 pm
Uidtome, I'm sorry of all the questions make you uncomfortable, but I am actually really curius as to what you mean by this?If you can't say God... don't you end up having problems with praying?
I can say it I just don't write it down because it's doomed to be erased.
OK. G-d has a personal name. It is far too holy to say or write down. So we call him G-d. But since it is too holy to be erased (which this will eventually be) you cannot write it down. As paper will decay and this conversation will be deleted eventually.
Just to clarify, I'm fine with any questions about my beliefs.
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 10:41:02 pm
Judges 1:19 being set after shouldn't mean anything, as the rule "Fight with God and you will win, or else" is long-established by then. When they lost it was because they lost faith or otherwise annoyed God, but in 1:19 they specifically had God on their side helping them win, until they were beaten specifically because of the presence of iron chariots. Chariots were good if used by masterful tactician in perfect circumstances, and iron is as stabby as bronze, but it is odd that a common, severely handicapped weapon of war and a particular material that they were made of were enough to stop the army and/or divine being that had just conquered half the Middle East.
To me, the most intriguing part is that the Bible includes this defeat of God. I mean, of all the things to get purged and mistranslated away, this thing stays in?
First, I think we can stop assuming that the Judean army was actually aided by a divine being in their battles. Because they weren't. The reason it's important that it was set long after is because, if I remember, Judges represents a time when Israel was weakened and divided. Also, the Israelites didn't conquer half of the Middle East. Hell, they didn't even conquer half of present day Israel. Just a few lines later it mentions that they were also unable to completely conquer the Jebusites of Jerusalem and hell, here's a bunch of other military campaigns which failed.
Quote from: Judges 1:27
But Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land.
In fact Jd 1:27-36 is basically a massive list of failures which is much larger than the list of successes. So yeah, the Israelites were pretty shitty militarily.
Quote
If an army does not have the equipment, training or strategic skill to counter them in any number of ways (not making the battlefield a perfectly flat plain, stepping to the side when they charge, pointing weapons at them...) then that does not bode well for their other ventures.
Indeed.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 10:44:03 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 10:48:30 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 10:53:05 pm
It would take a man with orbs of iron to challenge the word of the Lord. Are you that man?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 10:53:53 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 10:55:47 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 10, 2011, 10:59:04 pm
It almost sounds as if you think the Bible isn't being truthful when it mentions all those divine miracles and interventions.
It would take a man with orbs of iron to challenge the word of the Lord. Are you that man?
That made me laugh.
But yeah, I totally am that man. I'd go so far to say that the Bible isn't particularly trustworthy even as a historical document.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2011, 11:00:16 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 11:04:29 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 10, 2011, 11:30:49 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 11:39:07 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2011, 11:49:59 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 11:51:50 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 10, 2011, 11:57:25 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 10, 2011, 11:58:48 pm
And all this could be a mistranslation.
Post by: fqllve on January 11, 2011, 12:03:34 am
I JUST FELL INTO MY OWN SARCHASM.
Don't worry! I shall lower to you my Rope of Irony! This may take a while, just wait.
The bible clearly states that the Abrahamic God was unable to deal with the iron chariots, I don't know what else to tell you.
I really don't think that passage should be interpreted as god having a weakness to iron. That would be mind-bogglingly stupid. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the inhabitants of the valley are the Philistines, and we all know how soundly they kicked the Israelites asses until David.
And another possible interpretation would that by "he" it meant Judah. Not G-d.
And all this could be a mistranslation.
No, the passage is clearly about Judah the tribe, or perhaps Judah the kingdom. Absolutely isn't about Judah the person.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 11, 2011, 12:10:45 am
Post by: Glowcat on January 11, 2011, 12:11:35 am
ADDING SOMETHING NEW TO THE DISCUSSION
A new high-quality YouTube video made by the user Evid3nc3 adeptly ties together a lot of the history behind the God of the Abrahamic faiths. I suggest watching if you're interested in the origins of the dominant modern religious groups. I also suggest watching the rest of Evid3n3's remarkable on-going series where he describes the process of his transformation from deeply religious Christian to a non-religious position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 11, 2011, 12:16:58 am
If so the world view of Christianity will definitely change a lot.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 11, 2011, 12:18:56 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 11, 2011, 12:20:08 am
Post by: fqllve on January 11, 2011, 12:34:03 am
That reminds me! I was thinking about Christianity and Judaism and I came to the conclusion that Christianity and Judaism will split between the Old Testament, and the New Testament which has no creation story.
If so the world view of Christianity will definitely change a lot.
I really really believe this should happen. I see no reason why Christians should chain themselves to a thousands of years old mythological and historical document when they really only follow the parts of it they like. After all, Buddhism doesn't attach itself to Hinduism even though it's an outgrowth of that religion.
e:
ADDING SOMETHING NEW TO THE DISCUSSION
A new high-quality YouTube video made by the user Evid3nc3 adeptly ties together a lot of the history behind the God of the Abrahamic faiths. I suggest watching if you're interested in the origins of the dominant modern religious groups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg)
That is probably the most scholarly youtube video I have ever seen. I mean, he talks about the Documentary Hypothesis.
Thank you for that.
Post by: Shade-o on January 11, 2011, 12:53:29 am
Post by: Andir on January 11, 2011, 07:43:03 am
If you can't write it down because it would be erased at some point in time, how do you explain Bibles? That's written, on paper no doubt, and it will eventually be erased through decay. So if nobody can write down God, He, Him, Jesus, Jawa, or whatever name is being used at the time, how do you read about the religion? Are you stating the only acceptable method for passing down knowledge about this being is via word of mouth?
Post by: scriver on January 11, 2011, 07:52:20 am
I think I get it.Uidtome, I'm sorry of all the questions make you uncomfortable, but I am actually really curius as to what you mean by this?If you can't say God... don't you end up having problems with praying?
I can say it I just don't write it down because it's doomed to be erased.
OK. G-d has a personal name. It is far too holy to say or write down. So we call him G-d. But since it is too holy to be erased (which this will eventually be) you cannot write it down. As paper will decay and this conversation will be deleted eventually.
Just to clarify, I'm fine with any questions about my beliefs.
But if you cannot write it down because it will be erased, how can you say it when the sound will eventually fade out to nothingness as well?
Post by: Andir on January 11, 2011, 08:00:48 am
And that youtube video is very interesting to me (and I've never really been interested in the whole story, to tell the truth.)
Post by: Eugenitor on January 11, 2011, 08:20:42 am
That would be mind-bogglingly stupid.
We're talking about a vicious sadist with a penchant for mass murder and animal sacrifice, here. Having cold iron as his weakness makes perfect sense.
Post by: Shade-o on January 11, 2011, 09:43:46 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 11, 2011, 11:34:41 am
I really really believe this should happen. I see no reason why Christians should chain themselves to a thousands of years old mythological and historical document when they really only follow the parts of it they like. After all, Buddhism doesn't attach itself to Hinduism even though it's an outgrowth of that religion.
If so the world view of Christianity will definitely change a lot.
[/quote]
If this did happen then the definition of who is Jewish would change. If this happened I'd be Jewish. Or more likely another religion will come of this.
Post by: fqllve on January 11, 2011, 05:03:38 pm
That would be mind-bogglingly stupid.We're talking about a vicious sadist with a penchant for mass murder and animal sacrifice, here. Having cold iron as his weakness makes perfect sense.
Maybe if the Bible were a comic book. I hope someone, somewhere, has already done this.
If this did happen then the definition of who is Jewish would change. If this happened I'd be Jewish. Or more likely another religion will come of this.
Most likely it would be the Christians who disregard the Old Testament who would be considered a different religion. The current views on who's a Jew and who's a Christian wouldn't change.
Post by: Shade-o on January 11, 2011, 09:36:17 pm
It boggles the mind it does.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 11, 2011, 09:37:22 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 11, 2011, 09:39:00 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 11, 2011, 09:39:20 pm
That kinda seems both anti Christian and Jewish...And Islam. You guys all worship the same god.
And yeah, it's pretty crazy when you think about it.
Post by: Shade-o on January 11, 2011, 10:06:10 pm
Just on entertainment value alone this has been a blow to the world.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 11, 2011, 11:11:16 pm
You should check out The Salvation War (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSalvationWar) (links on page).Maybe if the Bible were a comic book. I hope someone, somewhere, has already done this.That would be mind-bogglingly stupid.We're talking about a vicious sadist with a penchant for mass murder and animal sacrifice, here. Having cold iron as his weakness makes perfect sense.
Post by: Bauglir on January 12, 2011, 12:53:41 am
I just read that whole page, and have only one response: Want.You should check out The Salvation War (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSalvationWar) (links on page).Maybe if the Bible were a comic book. I hope someone, somewhere, has already done this.That would be mind-bogglingly stupid.We're talking about a vicious sadist with a penchant for mass murder and animal sacrifice, here. Having cold iron as his weakness makes perfect sense.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 12, 2011, 12:55:44 am
Post by: fqllve on January 12, 2011, 01:36:15 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 12, 2011, 02:03:20 am
Fun Fact: The author's name is Stuart Slade, and the first part takes place in Hell.
Stuart Slade. Hell.
Stuart Slade. Hell.
Slade. Hell.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 12, 2011, 06:14:58 am
Have (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=118771)Damn, that's the most masturbatory piece of fiction that I've ever read.
Post by: fqllve on January 12, 2011, 06:16:42 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 12, 2011, 07:11:34 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 12, 2011, 01:54:27 pm
Damn, that's the most masturbatory piece of fiction that I've ever read.
Okay..... I don't want to be near you anymore....
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 12, 2011, 02:08:36 pm
Post by: CoughDrop on January 12, 2011, 02:24:17 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 12, 2011, 02:27:19 pm
Just as with 99% of your posts, I don't understand your reasoning, but by all means, suit yourself.
I'd just like to clarify that that was a joke.
Man did this thing derail.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 12, 2011, 04:11:10 pm
Post by: Eugenitor on January 12, 2011, 04:32:12 pm
How much do you discuss about the absence of something? It's like talking about interstellar vaccuum. "Yup, there's definitely nothing there." "Ooh, look at all the magnetic fields and loose ions." "Yeah, not much of anything." "Yup."
Post by: Zrk2 on January 12, 2011, 04:58:09 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 12, 2011, 06:30:49 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 12, 2011, 06:31:35 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 12, 2011, 06:41:08 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 12, 2011, 08:32:20 pm
And the New Testament being written way after Jesus' death, by people who never encountered him, and was then edited the hell out of by various political groups to match their aims.
At least, I think that was what we were talking about.
Post by: freeformschooler on January 12, 2011, 08:37:00 pm
Wait, I thought it was about how the Old Testament was originally a polytheistic Hebrew account of mythology that was later co-opted by politically powerful worshipers of the war god Yahweh, who clumsily edited it to look like it had always been about a monotheistic account of Yahweh?
And the New Testament being written way after Jesus' death, by people who never encountered him.
At least, I think that was what we were talking about.
I was a Christian for some time and what I heard was is nobody knows but everyone assumes the whole thing was written some time after Jesus' death. I'm not very sure though. I don't think anybody knows for sure.
Post by: Bauglir on January 12, 2011, 08:50:23 pm
Okay, re-opened. I'll lock it again if the conversation wanders down to nothing again, but I got a request for a specific topic.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 14, 2011, 10:54:21 pm
I've been thinking on this little conundrum a bit.
As Jesus said to the Apostles.
"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'"
This particular passage is kinda weird. It pretty much tells us that the masses didn't get the full scoop.
While he preached to a lot of people at once he told them not to spread the word. An interpretation of this is that he wanted to fulfill the Jewish Messiah prophecy. This seems a bit short but I haven't studied the matter very much.
What's your take on all this?
Post by: Zrk2 on January 14, 2011, 11:22:24 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 14, 2011, 11:23:27 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 14, 2011, 11:26:03 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 14, 2011, 11:28:17 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 14, 2011, 11:37:32 pm
Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense based on my comprehension of how his life (supposedly) went. Could you please explain this?
I really can't explain it. I simply can't. A possibility is that he intended to fulfill the Messianic prophecy. But this clearly did not happen.
There are interesting parallels with the non-canonical Gospel of Judas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas).
That is definitely a different take on this.
Post by: fqllve on January 14, 2011, 11:58:10 pm
There are interesting parallels with the non-canonical Gospel of Judas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas).That is definitely a different take on this.
Definitely. But it is also a very Gnostic statement that I'm surprised to hear is in the Christian canon. It's especially important that it's in Mark, since that's supposedly the original gospel.
From my understanding of the Gospels and Christianity what's important is faith. Faith is the path to salvation. (Of course there are certain sects that have other beliefs. Isn't it the Calvinists who believe grace is the path to salvation?) But here Jesus almost explicitly states that knowledge is the truly important part. Which is pretty much the basic tenet of Gnosticism.
Now, in the Gospel of Judas it is Judas who is given the secret teaching. But in Mark here all the apostles are given the secret teaching. And since I think Mark predates Judas that gives a canonical basis for the later Gnostic teachings.
Post by: Willfor on January 15, 2011, 12:52:45 am
Wait, I thought it was about how the Old Testament was originally a polytheistic Hebrew account of mythology that was later co-opted by politically powerful worshipers of the war god Yahweh, who clumsily edited it to look like it had always been about a monotheistic account of Yahweh?
And the New Testament being written way after Jesus' death, by people who never encountered him.
At least, I think that was what we were talking about.
I was a Christian for some time and what I heard was is nobody knows but everyone assumes the whole thing was written some time after Jesus' death. I'm not very sure though. I don't think anybody knows for sure.
Biblical scholarship is honestly not that hard to find from any side of the equation. The sheer amount of research that has gone into it from Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, and pretty much anyone means that a simple search in google can provide you with all of the information you require on the topic.
First result of "when mark was written." (http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm) Oh hey, it's even an atheistic source.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 15, 2011, 01:00:23 am
Post by: Siquo on January 15, 2011, 06:33:46 am
What's your take on all this?I think he meant that just "passing the word" and "telling facts" is not enough to understand. Even though you hear the words, you don't fully understand. That's why he used parables, to say something that can't be understood otherwise. In that case, God, or his message, is like poetry: The message is not in the words or their meanings, but in the emotion/feeling they convey.
Post by: Euld on January 15, 2011, 07:47:49 am
As I recall, there was a big misconception among the Jews with the idea of what role the Messiah was going to play. The Old Testament contains prophecies about Jesus's First and Second Comings; first as the suffering servant who dies for the sins of the world in the Gospels, then later as a conquering hero in Revelations. The general population was expecting the conquering hero Messiah because the Romans were occupying Israel and they desperately wanted to be free. Jesus's First Coming was about forgiveness and repentance however, and telling people he was the Messiah would only invoke their hope of revolution. Even the disciples didn't quite get it; later a few of them asked if they could be his right and left hand men when he began ruling his kingdom, to which he said "you don't know what you're asking," and those places were for the robber and murderer who were crucified with Jesus. Peter even rebuked Jesus when Jesus told them outright that he was going to die and rise again. (Jesus rebuked him back with the famous "get behind me, Satan!" speech.)
Post by: Phmcw on January 15, 2011, 08:34:08 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 15, 2011, 12:54:41 pm
I'm stepping foot into the religious threads again, hope I don't mess things up this time ::)
As I recall, there was a big misconception among the Jews with the idea of what role the Messiah was going to play. The Old Testament contains prophecies about Jesus's First and Second Comings; first as the suffering servant who dies for the sins of the world in the Gospels, then later as a conquering hero in Revelations. The general population was expecting the conquering hero Messiah because the Romans were occupying Israel and they desperately wanted to be free. Jesus's First Coming was about forgiveness and repentance however, and telling people he was the Messiah would only invoke their hope of revolution. Even the disciples didn't quite get it; later a few of them asked if they could be his right and left hand men when he began ruling his kingdom, to which he said "you don't know what you're asking," and those places were for the robber and murderer who were crucified with Jesus. Peter even rebuked Jesus when Jesus told them outright that he was going to die and rise again. (Jesus rebuked him back with the famous "get behind me, Satan!" speech.)
You lost me when you started with the prophecies. One of the reasons Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah is because they weren't told there would be a second coming. Even if Jesus didn't die he didn't fulfill the prophecy.
Kinda amusing that Mahomet was a conqueror then.
I'm not sure he was.
Post by: Zrk2 on January 15, 2011, 08:43:28 pm
Post by: Phmcw on January 15, 2011, 09:38:01 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 15, 2011, 09:48:18 pm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Muhammad.html
Post by: Euld on January 15, 2011, 11:48:49 pm
You lost me when you started with the prophecies. One of the reasons Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah is because they weren't told there would be a second coming. Even if Jesus didn't die he didn't fulfill the prophecy.This website has a pretty good list of the prophecies we use to justify the first coming. (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html) I know, I know, that website doesn't exactly have the best layout, but at a glance it seems to have everything I was looking for. True, I couldn't find an exact prophecy that said Jesus would come to earth twice, but when you look at all the prophecies (I'm a bit annoyed how this website says there's about 60 and it only lists 45, this isn't helping my case much...) you start to see a contradiction. On one hand, the Messiah is going to be betrayed and killed, but on the other, he's going to save Israel. With that in mind, and along with the accounts of the Gospels where Jesus pretty much explains how role at the time, we Christians believe in a first and second coming.
I'll just rest my case here. I doubt I've convinced anybody but oh well, that's what we believe, and in a round about way, why Jesus told his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Messiah (at least not tell anyone at the time).
Post by: Shade-o on January 16, 2011, 12:12:36 am
And that was ages ago.
Post by: Willfor on January 16, 2011, 01:18:51 am
Post by: Zrk2 on January 16, 2011, 01:30:27 am
Post by: Willfor on January 16, 2011, 01:40:14 am
Post by: Leafsnail on January 16, 2011, 08:59:43 am
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 16, 2011, 01:04:48 pm
Wasn't Muhammad born in the year 570 AD, while Jesus was born in 4 BC? Yeah not really contemporaries o_O. Unless we're going to stretch the definition of "contemporaries" to allow a Galileo vs. Hubble telescope debate or something :PYou lost me when you started with the prophecies. One of the reasons Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah is because they weren't told there would be a second coming. Even if Jesus didn't die he didn't fulfill the prophecy.This website has a pretty good list of the prophecies we use to justify the first coming. (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html) I know, I know, that website doesn't exactly have the best layout, but at a glance it seems to have everything I was looking for. True, I couldn't find an exact prophecy that said Jesus would come to earth twice, but when you look at all the prophecies (I'm a bit annoyed how this website says there's about 60 and it only lists 45, this isn't helping my case much...) you start to see a contradiction. On one hand, the Messiah is going to be betrayed and killed, but on the other, he's going to save Israel. With that in mind, and along with the accounts of the Gospels where Jesus pretty much explains how role at the time, we Christians believe in a first and second coming.
I'll just rest my case here. I doubt I've convinced anybody but oh well, that's what we believe, and in a round about way, why Jesus told his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Messiah (at least not tell anyone at the time).
But perhaps by dying he did, in fact save Israel. If they hid him the Sanhedrin might have arranged a few killings. And if the Romans got involved then Israel would have been in big trouble.
Post by: Phmcw on January 16, 2011, 06:24:01 pm
First Jewish–Roman War
Emperor Nero appointed general Vespasian to crush the rebellion.By the year 68, Jewish resistance in the north had been crushed, and Vespasian made Caesarea Maritima his headquarters and proceeded to methodically clear the coast.By the summer of 70, the Romans had breached the walls of Jerusalem, ransacking and burning nearly the entire city. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered the Jewish diaspora, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger.
Bar Kokhba revolt 132–136 AD
The outbreak took the Romans by surprise. Hadrian called his general Sextus Julius Severus from Britain, and troops were brought from as far as the Danube. The size of the Roman army amassed against the rebels was much larger than that commanded by Titus sixty years earlier. Roman losses were very heavy. The XXII Deiotariana was disbanded after serious losses.
The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils". The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar.
And finally the were finished of by Byzantium in 629. (source wikipeadia)
"Choosen one" indeed, but by Armok.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 16, 2011, 06:41:25 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 16, 2011, 06:56:08 pm
Post by: Zrk2 on January 16, 2011, 07:23:37 pm
Your savior didn't save them for long :
First Jewish–Roman War
Emperor Nero appointed general Vespasian to crush the rebellion.By the year 68, Jewish resistance in the north had been crushed, and Vespasian made Caesarea Maritima his headquarters and proceeded to methodically clear the coast.By the summer of 70, the Romans had breached the walls of Jerusalem, ransacking and burning nearly the entire city. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered the Jewish diaspora, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger.
Bar Kokhba revolt 132–136 AD
The outbreak took the Romans by surprise. Hadrian called his general Sextus Julius Severus from Britain, and troops were brought from as far as the Danube. The size of the Roman army amassed against the rebels was much larger than that commanded by Titus sixty years earlier. Roman losses were very heavy. The XXII Deiotariana was disbanded after serious losses.
The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils". The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar.
And finally the were finished of by Byzantium in 629. (source wikipeadia)
"Choosen one" indeed, but by Armok.
Saving them was more of a spiritual thing, like saving their souls from the hellfires...
Post by: Darvi on January 16, 2011, 07:26:00 pm
I still don't get that part. "Hey, our souls have been saved, now we can be as huge arseholes as we want and don't need to worry about eternal damnation!"
Saving them was more of a spiritual thing, like saving their souls from the hellfires...
Maybe some misunderstanding on my part, there.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 16, 2011, 07:28:25 pm
It's that with jesus' death humanity is cleared of Original Sin. IE we don't get damned immediately just becouse adam and eve ate from a tree. Though that doesn't make much sense to me 'Hey you all brutally murdered my son, I guess you deserve to not have me punish you for what adam and eve did four millenia ago'I still don't get that part. "Hey, our souls have been saved, now we can be as huge arseholes as we want and don't need to worry about eternal damnation!"
Saving them was more of a spiritual thing, like saving their souls from the hellfires...
Maybe some misunderstanding on my part, there.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 16, 2011, 07:29:25 pm
Post by: Darvi on January 16, 2011, 07:31:45 pm
Original sin kindof makes a mockery of heaven and hell anyway. Since you can get punished for something that you had nothing to do with...Yeah, god is like, you can do whatever you want, but for my sake do not eat that fruit! When Adam and eve eat it he jumps out from behind the bushes and goes all "Ha! Gotcha!"
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 16, 2011, 07:36:52 pm
I didn't want them to go near the tree becouse that's where I kept my porn collection, do you know how hard it is to find porn of Athena?Original sin kindof makes a mockery of heaven and hell anyway. Since you can get punished for something that you had nothing to do with...Yeah, god is like, you can do whatever you want, but for my sake do not eat that fruit! When Adam and eve eat it he jumps out from behind the bushes and goes all "Ha! Gotcha!"
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on January 16, 2011, 07:41:30 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 16, 2011, 07:43:24 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 16, 2011, 08:11:31 pm
Original sin kindof makes a mockery of heaven and hell anyway. Since you can get punished for something that you had nothing to do with...Yeah, god is like, you can do whatever you want, but for my sake do not eat that fruit! When Adam and eve eat it he jumps out from behind the bushes and goes all "Ha! Gotcha!"
Well I guess you could say that Satan tricked them against the knowledge of God but that would mean that God is not all powerful...
I'm bad at this.
Post by: Darvi on January 16, 2011, 08:12:46 pm
He's a jerk for putting the tree there in the first place.Original sin kindof makes a mockery of heaven and hell anyway. Since you can get punished for something that you had nothing to do with...Yeah, god is like, you can do whatever you want, but for my sake do not eat that fruit! When Adam and eve eat it he jumps out from behind the bushes and goes all "Ha! Gotcha!"
Well I guess you could say that Satan tricked them against the knowledge of God but that would mean that God is not all powerful...
I'm bad at this.
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 16, 2011, 08:14:16 pm
Not really, It's hard to influence other gods with my power, this included just makeing porn of them pop out of thin air.
You're really running a joke that wasn't all that funny in the first place into the ground.
Post by: Shade-o on January 16, 2011, 10:12:17 pm
Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.
Post by: fqllve on January 16, 2011, 10:39:56 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 16, 2011, 10:50:49 pm
Two easily manipulated, completely naive humans, a forbidden tree of knowledge and power, and a serpent who exists only to trick people into disobeying God.The whole question of the origin of evil, and why it exists, is a problem for many religions. (Mine is not one of them :P)
Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.
Post by: Eugenitor on January 16, 2011, 10:58:32 pm
Not really, It's hard to influence other gods with my power, this included just makeing porn of them pop out of thin air.
So you're God of Rule 34?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 16, 2011, 11:39:38 pm
I've heard theories that the serpent was supposed to represent Marduk. To distance the burgeoning religion from its source. The most interesting part of that is that Marduk's symbol, the snake-dragon, is commonly depicted with legs. And in the story of the Fall, God later condemns the serpent to crawling on its belly, implying that it originally had some other form of movement.
I think I remember hearing that snake's have what appear to have once been legs. I don't know how truthful this is though.
Two easily manipulated, completely naive humans, a forbidden tree of knowledge and power, and a serpent who exists only to trick people into disobeying God.The whole question of the origin of evil, and why it exists, is a problem for many religions. (Mine is not one of them :P)
Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.
I'm sorry but do your Gods do anything?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 12:10:46 am
Well, technically due to pantheism, they cause everything that's ever happened that isn't a result of a choice of a sapient being :P (because almost anything a sapient being does is either good or bad, and the gods are neither, only nature and the gods are truly neutral) Sort of. I mean, it's more complicated than that, and I don't really care to explain my beliefs regarding it.Two easily manipulated, completely naive humans, a forbidden tree of knowledge and power, and a serpent who exists only to trick people into disobeying God.The whole question of the origin of evil, and why it exists, is a problem for many religions. (Mine is not one of them :P)
Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.
I'm sorry but do your Gods do anything?
Post by: Bauglir on January 17, 2011, 12:49:51 am
I've heard theories that the serpent was supposed to represent Marduk. To distance the burgeoning religion from its source. The most interesting part of that is that Marduk's symbol, the snake-dragon, is commonly depicted with legs. And in the story of the Fall, God later condemns the serpent to crawling on its belly, implying that it originally had some other form of movement.
I think I remember hearing that snake's have what appear to have once been legs. I don't know how truthful this is though.
Some constrictors have remnants of a pelvic girdle (basically hips), but that's about it. They're very tiny, though; more or less certainly vestigial elements leftover from whatever their evolutionary ancestor was.
Post by: Shade-o on January 17, 2011, 01:02:44 am
Well, technically due to pantheism, they cause everything that's ever happened that isn't a result of a choice of a sapient being :P (because almost anything a sapient being does is either good or bad, and the gods are neither, only nature and the gods are truly neutral) Sort of. I mean, it's more complicated than that, and I don't really care to explain my beliefs regarding it.
That just sounds as if you are attributing natural universal processes to a supernatural cause.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 01:15:17 am
Not exactly, but kind of. It's part of the deal with pantheism (or at least the "version" that I believe) that there's no distinction between the natural and supernatural, that everything that could be described as supernatural is natural, etc. I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in.Well, technically due to pantheism, they cause everything that's ever happened that isn't a result of a choice of a sapient being :P (because almost anything a sapient being does is either good or bad, and the gods are neither, only nature and the gods are truly neutral) Sort of. I mean, it's more complicated than that, and I don't really care to explain my beliefs regarding it.
That just sounds as if you are attributing natural universal processes to a supernatural cause.
Post by: Shade-o on January 17, 2011, 01:22:38 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 01:27:15 am
What sort of supernatural interactions are there?
I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in.Not going to go into that, it's irrelevant. And I'm not 100% sure about it anyway, but whatever. What beliefs are of 100% certainty anyway?
Post by: Shade-o on January 17, 2011, 01:29:01 am
So, given the choice between a supernatural and natural universe, each other them exactly the same, why did you choose supernatural?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 01:30:56 am
Oh right.That's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.
So, given the choice between a supernatural and natural universe, each other them exactly the same, why did you choose supernatural?
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 17, 2011, 01:41:40 am
Shade-o, may I ask why you believe that God has a weakness to iron?
Post by: Shade-o on January 17, 2011, 02:03:59 am
Quote
That's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.
I'll just assume that you witnessed tragedy that no sane universe would inflict.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 02:20:55 am
You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me :PQuoteThat's rather personal, but suffice to say that a supernatural universe explains more to me.
I'll just assume that you witnessed tragedy that no sane universe would inflict.
Post by: scriver on January 17, 2011, 04:04:51 am
Anecdotal tidbit; There's also the Anguis fragilis (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguis_fragilis), which is basically a lizard that dropped it's legs.I've heard theories that the serpent was supposed to represent Marduk. To distance the burgeoning religion from its source. The most interesting part of that is that Marduk's symbol, the snake-dragon, is commonly depicted with legs. And in the story of the Fall, God later condemns the serpent to crawling on its belly, implying that it originally had some other form of movement.
I think I remember hearing that snake's have what appear to have once been legs. I don't know how truthful this is though.
Some constrictors have remnants of a pelvic girdle (basically hips), but that's about it. They're very tiny, though; more or less certainly vestigial elements leftover from whatever their evolutionary ancestor was.
You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me :P...But if you don't explain stuff you will be judged-by-assumption by default... :(
Post by: Shade-o on January 17, 2011, 04:09:56 am
And by that I mean entering this thread and refusing to discuss your religion.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 05:12:12 am
I won't just you on my assumptions, but I will judge based on your non-participation in threads that you participate in.I'm not refusing to discuss my religion, and in fact, have discussed it more than pretty much everybody here except maybe urist is dead tome. What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant.
And by that I mean entering this thread and refusing to discuss your religion.
Post by: malimbar04 on January 17, 2011, 09:40:09 am
Why are you in this discussion? I mean this quite honestly by the way, not in the snarky way it sounds. I've seen you post one-sentence posts saying that you don't want to tell us something about what you believe over and over again. In a thread set up to debate the existence of gods and the validity or religion, we shouldn't have to work your beliefs out of you. You should just be forthcoming about them. You should do so every time that it is a barrier to the discussion, and we shouldn't see posts like
"I'm not refusing to discuss my religion, and in fact, have discussed it more than pretty much everybody here except maybe urist is dead tome. What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant."
or
"You can assume whatever you like, as long as you don't use your assumptions to judge me :P"
or
"I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in."
and so forth.
This is continuous dancing around the issue, when the thread is explicitly about debating the issue. I'm pretty sure that every religious belief you hold, when looked at honestly and openly, will be vacuous and silly. The ones you've expressed so far I think we've shown to be as such. However, your wording keeps suggesting that you're holding back your real belief system, which might be completely plausible. I don't think it is. I think it's probably the vague and meaningless kind, or the superstitious, specific, and flat out wrong kind.
Post by: Willfor on January 17, 2011, 10:00:10 am
Post by: Siquo on January 17, 2011, 10:08:21 am
He just doesn't want to discuss his personal reasons for choosing his belief, something that should be respected. It might be an event or something that he feels very emotional about, and his reasons are not up for discussion. You may discuss what he believes as much as you wish.
Your criticism on CoF's refusal to discuss his beliefs is unfounded (since he has done so if you'd care to read back), and malimbar is being especially disrespectful. Cut that out.
Post by: Willfor on January 17, 2011, 10:10:17 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 17, 2011, 11:03:09 am
Two easily manipulated, completely naive humans, a forbidden tree of knowledge and power, and a serpent who exists only to trick people into disobeying God.The whole question of the origin of evil, and why it exists, is a problem for many religions. (Mine is not one of them :P)
Why those last two were included in the first place is not very clear.
I'm sorry but do your Gods do anything?
i find this so ironic.
and malimbar is being especially disrespectful. Cut that out.
i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.
-------------
Not exactly, but kind of. It's part of the deal with pantheism (or at least the "version" that I believe) that there's no distinction between the natural and supernatural, that everything that could be described as supernatural is natural, etc. I mean, outside of non-sapient creatures, their interaction is pretty much purely supernatural (not going to go into it, don't ask), but yeah, that's where panentheism kind of comes in.Well, technically due to pantheism, they cause everything that's ever happened that isn't a result of a choice of a sapient being :P (because almost anything a sapient being does is either good or bad, and the gods are neither, only nature and the gods are truly neutral) Sort of. I mean, it's more complicated than that, and I don't really care to explain my beliefs regarding it.
That just sounds as if you are attributing natural universal processes to a supernatural cause.
my view is that good and bad are concepts that came out of human mind, i don't even think they are or always were present in all human cultures, therefore, without humans judging each other, all human actions are neutral, there is no good or bad. do you disagree with me? if no, the why are sapient beings any different from any other natural phenomenon?
also, would you classify your gods as sentient? if yes, why are they neutral? or why are they sentient if they are neutral, if a creature, or thing, has no interest in anything at all, i don't see why it should have sentience or perception at all
Post by: Siquo on January 17, 2011, 11:15:04 am
i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.Claiming someone is dancing around the issue, and then attacking his beliefs, without taking the effort to actually read back what those beliefs are, is disrespectful in my book.
The irony of Urist is obvious, though :)
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 17, 2011, 11:56:33 am
Post by: Siquo on January 17, 2011, 12:07:59 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 17, 2011, 12:19:11 pm
Post by: Eugenitor on January 17, 2011, 12:25:42 pm
Who's there?
Urist!
Urist who?
Urist upid as you look!
Anyway, the Adam and Eve business is a metaphor for lost innocence, which Abrahamic religions consider a bad thing for some reason.
Post by: Phmcw on January 17, 2011, 12:35:42 pm
"Hey you two, for some reason, you aren't granted access to knowledge.
No not even if things are good or evil.
So you don't know that going against my will is evil. (Why is it so remain a mystery to these days, because as far as I know, gathering knowledge is good.)
Ho noes, you've learned to distinguish good from evil!
Now I must chase you away!"
Hey by this logic, teabaggers are saint : Not the tiniest trace from knowledge or of the ability to distinguishing good and evil in theirs minds.
Post by: Andir on January 17, 2011, 12:42:44 pm
The issue was danced around though...i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.Claiming someone is dancing around the issue, and then attacking his beliefs, without taking the effort to actually read back what those beliefs are, is disrespectful in my book.
What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant.The question was asked, why... and the reason was give: "It's personal."
To me, that's like saying: "Do this because I said so."
There's a/an (ir)rationality there that hasn't been breached. For good or bad, that's the root of the discussion and it's been placed behind a brick wall.
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2011, 01:28:28 pm
I'm pretty sure that every religious belief you hold, when looked at honestly and openly, will be vacuous and silly.
And stuff like that implies your interest in his beliefs isn't in good faith. It sounds like you just want to know his personal reasons for believing so you can tear them apart. Maybe he just thinks it makes the universe a more interesting place, does he not have a right to come in here, discuss religion, without having people attack that? It's not like Crown has run around in the thread tearing at other people's beliefs.
I was unaware that the purpose of this thread was "Make everyone an atheist." If I had been I, an atheist, wouldn't have participated at all.
Post by: Andir on January 17, 2011, 01:58:08 pm
Except he's not asking you to do anything. Those are his reasons for believing what he believes.Not the intend of what I said... but the question was raised to further the discussion and the wall was erected. It's a typical defense procedure. "Stop any and all discussion at this line." This is why religion stands today. You can try to query people to find out why they follow a religion and try to get to the bottom and/or educate them and the defense wall eventually gets presented. At some point in a person's life they decide that no further learning is required and nothing will sway them. Answering "Why?" helps determine that point.
Also, it has nothing to do with attacking.
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2011, 02:40:00 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 17, 2011, 02:47:46 pm
Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.Ignorance is bliss. That's why. I've always been jealous of stupid people.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2011, 02:54:42 pm
I haven't. Ignorance may be bliss sometimes, but having the truth crash down upon you unexpectedly one day makes it not worth it. I personally have always enjoyed knowing things, having even the slightest greater understanding of the world around me every day, rather than being left to guess in the dark.Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.Ignorance is bliss. That's why. I've always been jealous of stupid people.
Post by: Andir on January 17, 2011, 04:06:33 pm
Wouldn't that instead further my understanding of the world?No, how is studying the text of the Lord of the Rings Series (for example) going to enhance your knowledge of the universe we live in? If you take the examples from that book, you'd be doing no different than following a religion. There may be an interesting story to tell and it may give good life advice, but it's not real. Relying on the stories in the books to relate to real life just doesn't make sense. You can't sequester yourself into a world you make up on your own (taking cues/being taught about a world someone else made up) and expect it to end up well. If you want to truly understand something, you have to remove all traces of belief in your current system and analyze something for what it is, and not what you think it should be. That means accepting that there isn't some divine being controlling things and the world operates on specific sets of rules. Believing something created those rules really has no bearing on how they work and introducing human like creationism into the mix gives you the idea that this creator may bend those rules to fit their own agenda. Now you see small variances in your testing and you assume it's "The Great Being" making finite adjustments instead of finding out why those are happening.
Religion isn't just about ignorance, it isn't anti-intellectual, it doesn't prohibit learning. If we try to use religion as a reason as a way to explain otherwise answerable questions then yes, but for some people religion has driven their desire to learn. Some people would like to understand the mind of their god, and the way to do this is through study of his creation.Some people do the opposite. They use religion for a crutch and ignore any evidence to the contrary. They erect that wall and say, "It works this way because of ____ god" and ignore all contrary evidence, refuse to look beyond the defensive wall and shut down all conversation related to it. They are setting themselves up for disappointment or using such knowledge to suppress or control others. (Laws [Blue or "Moral Blue"], Wars [no explain needed], Rituals [Burkas], Indoctrination [In God We Trust, Baptism], etc.)
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2011, 04:32:20 pm
No, how is studying the text of the Lord of the Rings Series (for example) going to enhance your knowledge of the universe we live in? If you take the examples from that book, you'd be doing no different than following a religion. There may be an interesting story to tell and it may give good life advice, but it's not real. Relying on the stories in the books to relate to real life just doesn't make sense. You can't sequester yourself into a world you make up on your own (taking cues/being taught about a world someone else made up) and expect it to end up well. If you want to truly understand something, you have to remove all traces of belief in your current system and analyze something for what it is, and not what you think it should be. That means accepting that there isn't some divine being controlling things and the world operates on specific sets of rules. Believing something created those rules really has no bearing on how they work and introducing human like creationism into the mix gives you the idea that this creator may bend those rules to fit their own agenda. Now you see small variances in your testing and you assume it's "The Great Being" making finite adjustments instead of finding out why those are happening.
So what, metaphor can never add to your understanding? Learning to relate things you don't understand to things you do through metaphor is worthless?
Besides, not all religion is based on books, not all "creationism" is young earth biblical creationism. Some people use god to answer questions that can't be answered through empirical observation or rational thought.
Quote
Some people do the opposite. They use religion for a crutch and ignore any evidence to the contrary. They erect that wall and say, "It works this way because of ____ god" and ignore all contrary evidence, refuse to look beyond the defensive wall and shut down all conversation related to it. They are setting themselves up for disappointment or using such knowledge to suppress or control others. (Laws [Blue or "Moral Blue"], Wars [no explain needed], Rituals [Burkas], Indoctrination [In God We Trust, Baptism], etc.)
Of course some people do the opposite, but just because those people do doesn't mean everyone does or that religion should be judged solely on them.
Post by: Bauglir on January 17, 2011, 04:41:15 pm
That said, this is still a discussion thread; if you don't want to discuss your reasons for believing what you do here, CoF, then it's probably best not to bring those beliefs up here in the first place. We can't have much of a discussion about them if there's no rationale presented. It's fine to present your perspective on other discussions that come up, but there is a good chance you may not be considered particularly convincing if that perspective relies on your personal beliefs.
In short, I'd like to call a moratorium on discussing CoF's reasons for believing what he does, both on his part and on everyone else's, because it's not going to go anywhere productive and is probably just going to make most people involved look bad.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 06:59:54 pm
Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.
"Hey you two, for some reason, you aren't granted access to knowledge.
No not even if things are good or evil.
So you don't know that going against my will is evil. (Why is it so remain a mystery to these days, because as far as I know, gathering knowledge is good.)
Ho noes, you've learned to distinguish good from evil!
Now I must chase you away!"
Hey by this logic, teabaggers are saint : Not the tiniest trace from knowledge or of the ability to distinguishing good and evil in theirs minds.
Well you could go by the view point that rather then all knowledge is evil, knowledge of sin is evil.
In the begining Adam and Eve did not understand sin, or what 'evil' was, thus they were happy to strut around in the nude to the pleasure of many bad fan fiction writers. However, when they are the forbidden fruit they broke the rules, and disobayed super man. There wasn't realy anything special about the fruit, it was the action of doing what they were told not to that was important. From then on, because they had sinned, they knew what it meant, as shown by the fact that they put some pants on, much to the pleasure of everybody else.
Yeah, actually, this isn't the place to tell people to be atheist. I do understand that you're trying to help, just as a proselytizer believes he's trying to help people by converting them. But if he wants to say, "This is what I believe, but I don't want to discuss the reasons why," that's fine in general. It's an acceptable defense for his own beliefs, because not only does the burden of proof lie with others to change his mind, it's his decision as to whether or not he wants to deal with it at all. When all we're talking about are his own choices, that's perfectly reasonable. That changes if we're talking about convincing others of his beliefs, but at the moment we're not.
That said, this is still a discussion thread; if you don't want to discuss your reasons for believing what you do here, CoF, then it's probably best not to bring those beliefs up here in the first place. We can't have much of a discussion about them if there's no rationale presented. It's fine to present your perspective on other discussions that come up, but there is a good chance you may not be considered particularly convincing if that perspective relies on your personal beliefs.
In short, I'd like to call a moratorium on discussing CoF's reasons for believing what he does, both on his part and on everyone else's, because it's not going to go anywhere productive and is probably just going to make most people involved look bad.
Do you put your text in red because your so pretentiouse that your block of text is more important that anybody elses, and people will stop and take ntice of it? I bet your one of those people who says a joke, and when nobody laughes you repeat it louder.
Post by: Criptfeind on January 17, 2011, 07:04:24 pm
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 07:07:31 pm
Your right! I am a jerk!
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Post by: Criptfeind on January 17, 2011, 07:10:38 pm
I am not willing to form any thoughts on someone from one post. I do not believe you are a jerk.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 07:12:56 pm
Post by: Urist is dead tome on January 17, 2011, 07:14:11 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 17, 2011, 07:15:06 pm
The "suffering" is this: Imagine two men leaving for the airport. They both leave at 16:00. There's heavy traffic, and they arrive at the airport at 18:30. Now man A's plane left at exactly 18:00, as it was supposed to. Man B's plane, however, had to leave at 18:00 but was delayed until 18:25, and he can see it take off just as he reaches the gate.
Now which of those to men is unhappier?
Most people will say man B, even though the actual result and situation is the same for both men. It's the knowledge of the plane that makes the "unhappy" thought.
Ignorance is bliss. Really. Even knowledgeable people get the truth crash down upon them. Ignorant people might not even notice ;)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2011, 07:49:48 pm
Ignorance is bliss. Really.Ignorance is ignorance. I am very glad to not be Past Me every day of my life, because Past Me was more ignorant than Present Me. Ignorance may be bliss, but enlightenment is euphoria.
Quote
Even knowledgeable people get the truth crash down upon them.If you know about the world around you, then you can see these revelations coming, and have a chance to avoid them. The ignorant have no such chance, and the painful situation cannot be dealt with before it becomes a problem.
Quote
Ignorant people might not even notice ;)If they die from it, perhaps. Otherwise, not very likely.
Post by: fqllve on January 17, 2011, 08:09:03 pm
Not that ignorance actually is bliss. In my day to day I'm no more affected by saddening information than a person who doesn't know it. And because I do know it my highs are higher than they would have been. Happiness is contrast.
Post by: Bauglir on January 17, 2011, 08:26:54 pm
Oh but I know I am. I accused another of bad joke mongering based on there willingness to moderate there own thread, and that is a rather jerkish act. Ok, so were all jerks sometimes, and in my defence reading red text will give me a head ace in about 2 seconds (I hate red text! On white backgrounds atleast) but still, it wasn't the right thing to do on my behalf.
No problem; you realized your mistake and apologized, everything's cool. I can see your problem with the red text (I'm just ripping it off a different forum I frequent). Is there a color you'd prefer? Unfortunately, I can't do most forms of non-color formatting because I have a tendency to intersperse actual arguments with italics and bold and suchlike, but I'd be happy to switch to a less-painful color.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 08:32:51 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 17, 2011, 08:40:59 pm
It's like, finality.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 17, 2011, 09:30:49 pm
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 09:32:22 pm
That's it, I'm converting to full blown creatonist christian just to beleive in a hell just so I can be happy knowing that you are going there for that post!
Post by: Zrk2 on January 17, 2011, 10:03:34 pm
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 17, 2011, 10:08:02 pm
Spoiler: Off Topic (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bauglir on January 17, 2011, 10:43:02 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 10:44:40 pm
Soo... do I need to be locking it again?Quick, we need a topic!
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 10:46:23 pm
Who wants for and who wants against?
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 17, 2011, 10:48:15 pm
Religen
This is an awesome name for a random religion generator. That is all.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 10:49:42 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 10:51:12 pm
Religen is a burdon to man kind, in that is stops scientific advance.Not every religion. I'd appreciate it if you didn't generalize all of them.
Who wants for and who wants against?
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 10:52:30 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 10:53:22 pm
Religen is a burdon to man kind, in that is stops scientific advance.
Thats like saying gravity stops us from exploring the stars.
It's there, it's not going anywhere and well tough shit, you can do nothing to get rid of it.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 10:53:51 pm
Can I sign you up for against then? Sounds like you have a ripping arrgument there!I said not every religion. I am neither for or against your false dichotomy.
Post by: Bauglir on January 17, 2011, 10:55:23 pm
Religen is a burdon to man kind, in that is stops scientific advance.
Thats like saying gravity stops us from exploring the stars.
It's there, it's not going anywhere and well tough shit, you can do nothing to get rid of it.
And it's useful for many other purposes, not to mention certain applications can actually make exploring the stars easier!
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 10:57:21 pm
Can I sign you up for against then? Sounds like you have a ripping arrgument there!I said not every religion. I am neither for or against your false dichotomy.
Ah, but if the statement is false then you must be agaist it. Also, don't be so quick to assume I support this statement myself, I chose my words to allow for a debate, not to be right.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 11:14:55 pm
Your statement is neither correct nor false. It is assuming that a dichotomy exists. That is a logical fallacy in itself.Can I sign you up for against then? Sounds like you have a ripping arrgument there!I said not every religion. I am neither for or against your false dichotomy.
Ah, but if the statement is false then you must be agaist it. Also, don't be so quick to assume I support this statement myself, I chose my words to allow for a debate, not to be right.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:18:50 pm
Your statement is neither correct nor false. It is assuming that a dichotomy exists. That is a logical fallacy in itself.
Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".
Religen is a burdon to man kind, in that is stops scientific advance.
Thats like saying gravity stops us from exploring the stars.
It's there, it's not going anywhere and well tough shit, you can do nothing to get rid of it.
Finaly, something to talk about, sort of.
But gravity is the thing stopping us from exploring the stars. Relitivity too, but regurdless... The topic is if the statement is true, not the implications of it being true.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 11:20:56 pm
No, because that statement is still assuming the same false dichotomy, just in the opposite direction.Your statement is neither correct nor false. It is assuming that a dichotomy exists. That is a logical fallacy in itself.
Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:22:42 pm
But gravity is the thing stopping us from exploring the stars. Relitivity too, but regurdless... The topic is if the statement is true, not the implications of it being true.But without gravity we would be jettisoned into space, or more importantly we, we meaning life itself, would never have developed.
As is with Religion.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:22:53 pm
Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".No, because that statement is still assuming the same false dichotomy, just in the opposite direction.
[/quote]
I don't think you get the point of a debate. If something is wrong, you say why it is wrong, not that you refuse to debate the point because it is wrong. That is rather silly, and would mean the the affermitive team was always right no matter what, because there is a debate.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:23:51 pm
But without gravity we would be jettisoned into space, or more importantly we, we meaning life itself, would never have developed.
As is with Religion.
That is a rather large statment to throw out there unfounded. Man kind can live without it's magic man. Athiests do very well in life.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:26:06 pm
Post by: Willfor on January 17, 2011, 11:26:40 pm
You're misunderstanding him. He said it wouldn't have developed without it, not that we need it to continue.But without gravity we would be jettisoned into space, or more importantly we, we meaning life itself, would never have developed.
As is with Religion.
That is a rather large statment to throw out there unfounded. Man kind can live without it's magic man. Athiests do very well in life.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 11:27:32 pm
Quote
The point itself isn't correct or false. In order to argue for either side, I either have to say that ALL religion gets in the way of scientific advancement, or NO religion gets in the way. Neither of which is true. The way you presented the statement is just wrong.Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".No, because that statement is still assuming the same false dichotomy, just in the opposite direction.
I don't think you get the point of a debate. If something is wrong, you say why it is wrong, not that you refuse to debate the point because it is wrong. That is rather silly, and would mean the the affermitive team was always right no matter what, because there is a debate.
And what did the poor quote tags do to you to deserve that mutilation?
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 17, 2011, 11:28:33 pm
Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".
You should just rephrase it to "false". If you want to stoke the fires of discussion, you need something better than an inane statement that even you claim not to believe.
I don't think you get the point of a debate. If something is wrong, you say why it is wrong, not that you refuse to debate the point because it is wrong. That is rather silly, and would mean the the affermitive team was always right no matter what, because there is a debate.
Given the statement in question, everyone will disagree. Circle-jerking does not a debate make.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:33:11 pm
You're misunderstanding him. He said it wouldn't have developed without it, not that we need it to continue.
Not only this, but that you will never get rid of Religion for the same reason you will never get rid of Creativity, Fear or Hate.
Its part of who we are.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:33:26 pm
Would it allow you to sleep at night if I were to change the phrase to "All religions stem scientific advance".
You should just rephrase it to "false". If you want to stoke the fires of discussion, you need something better than an inane statement that even you claim not to believe.I don't think you get the point of a debate. If something is wrong, you say why it is wrong, not that you refuse to debate the point because it is wrong. That is rather silly, and would mean the the affermitive team was always right no matter what, because there is a debate.
Given the statement in question, everyone will disagree. Circle-jerking does not a discussion make.
I'm willing to defend the point. Once again, I don't agree with it, but I think I could atleast hold my own for a while. A gentleman must be able to stand for what he does not beleive in as much as what he does, if only for the principle of free debate.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:36:19 pm
You're misunderstanding him. He said it wouldn't have developed without it, not that we need it to continue.
Did we need it to go to where we are? In all reality, yes. Would we have been better off without it? Well that is an interesting idea. When cave men sat down and saw that there was wind, maybe instead of guessing magic thing did it, taking notice that it usely went in a certen direction on hot days, and the other direction on others would have put us ahead.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:37:28 pm
What are you going to do? Invent time travel and tell them to stop being retarded fools?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2011, 11:39:19 pm
Not only this, but that you will never get rid of Religion for the same reason you will never get rid of Creativity, Fear or Hate.It's not part of who I am. Creativity, Fear, and Hatered are part of every individual to some degree, but the existance of atheists shows that religion is not a intrinsic part of human behavior.
Its part of who we are.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:39:31 pm
But they didn'tNo, I'm going to debate that we would have been better off without such beleifs. If anybody can understand what a topic is, anyway. I'm thinking it isn't very likely today.
What are you going to do? Invent time travel and tell them to stop being retarded fools?
Since when was practical implication that important for a debate?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 17, 2011, 11:40:15 pm
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 17, 2011, 11:41:51 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:44:48 pm
It's not part of who I am. Creativity, Fear, and Hatered are part of every individual to some degree, but the existance of atheists shows that religion is not a intrinsic part of human behavior.
Ah, but no matter how advanced we get there will still be people looking towards a higher power.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:47:44 pm
There's really no point in talking about what if religion never started, because the fact is, it did. There is literally nothing you can do to change that. You can theorize all you want, but it doesn't affect anything and isn't a good basis for any argument.
Since when was practical implication that important for a debate?
Honestly, I have seen debates in the past about 'Does god have a sence of humour?'
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:49:16 pm
Ah, but no matter how advanced we get there will still be people looking towards a higher power.
And must that be a magic man in the sky? A politician, businessman, artist, engineer or scientist of great caliber could fill this roll and get some good done at the same time.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 17, 2011, 11:51:06 pm
I find irony in that 'barbaric' or 'silly' and 'pagan' religions where more scientificly minded than monotheistic religions. They had a different reason for EVERYTHING they could find, and why that reason(usually a god) did such things. Monotheistic religions on the otherhand, the Abramic triad specificly, just says "God did all of this for some reason no human could possibly understnad".
I think the problem is/was more that large-scale organized religion (most notably, the Catholic Church) upheld dogma to the detriment of progress. Note that progress is not always immediately recognizable. I don't think monotheism was as important as the institution.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:51:36 pm
And must that be a magic man in the sky? A politician, businessman, artist, engineer or scientist of great caliber could fill this roll and get some good done at the same time.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said greater, Infallible and All-Powerful. Anyone is only a man.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 17, 2011, 11:52:06 pm
Or not. You don't know that.It's not part of who I am. Creativity, Fear, and Hatered are part of every individual to some degree, but the existance of atheists shows that religion is not a intrinsic part of human behavior.
Ah, but no matter how advanced we get there will still be people looking towards a higher power.
I can imagine at least one hypothetical situation when it's not true: Every human being but Richard Dawkins dies. There, the future is now.
Hey, Max, what's with the double posts?
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 17, 2011, 11:53:32 pm
Ah, but no matter how advanced we get there will still be people looking towards a higher power.
And must that be a magic man in the sky? A politician, businessman, artist, engineer or scientist of great caliber could fill this roll and get some good done at the same time.
[sarcasem] Yes, let's make out a human to be the answer many people look up to in times of need and desperation. There is no possible way that could go wrong [/sarcasem
Giveing a person that much power, even if just in the fact people will do what they say with little argument, is NOT a good idea.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 17, 2011, 11:55:05 pm
I don't think that is true. We've come a long way in these last few centuries. Our world today is somthing that Dark Age peons couldn't fathom in their wildest imaginations. The future now is even more uncertain, as our cumulative knowlage continues to increase on an exponential level. There may come a day when religion is a relic of the past, and perhaps there may not. I don't think we can predict it either way, and even trying is pointlessly futile.It's not part of who I am. Creativity, Fear, and Hatered are part of every individual to some degree, but the existance of atheists shows that religion is not a intrinsic part of human behavior.
Ah, but no matter how advanced we get there will still be people looking towards a higher power.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 17, 2011, 11:57:07 pm
Thats not what I mean, I mean in it's essence the idea of one god who did everything for a reason humans can't comprehend is in and of itself backwards compaired to many gods who each did and/or control different things and do what they do for a clearly defined reason. In the case of the Greek gods it's becouse most of them where drunken, psychotic, egomanical, incestuous morons who happend to be born with far more power than a mortal has.I find irony in that 'barbaric' or 'silly' and 'pagan' religions where more scientificly minded than monotheistic religions. They had a different reason for EVERYTHING they could find, and why that reason(usually a god) did such things. Monotheistic religions on the otherhand, the Abramic triad specificly, just says "God did all of this for some reason no human could possibly understnad".
I think the problem is/was more that large-scale organized religion (most notably, the Catholic Church) upheld dogma to the detriment of progress. Note that progress is not always immediately recognizable. I don't think monotheism was as important as the institution.
Post by: Max White on January 17, 2011, 11:57:27 pm
Perhaps I shouldn't have said greater, Infallible and All-Powerful. Anyone is only a man.Bah! Right now, one man by the name of Theo Jansen is building creatures that we want to walk the earth long after he's death. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson crafted a world that will continue to live on for ages to come. The storys of Hayao Miyazaki will be told for generations to come, and the ghospels accauding to Terry Pratchett are timeless. Anyone is god, if they try hard enough.
As for double posts, I expected somebody to post another reply before I got that one out.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 17, 2011, 11:58:45 pm
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:00:22 am
You've done it 3 times.
Ah, but they were always replys to another person. It's not like I just said what ever and split it into several posts for no reason what so ever.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:02:11 am
In the case of the Greek gods it's becouse most of them where drunken, psychotic, egomanical, incestuous morons who happend to be born with far more power than a mortal has.
Yeah. The Greeks anthropomorphized their gods just a little too much. :P
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 12:02:23 am
But they didn'tOh no... please don't. You'll only encourage them to worship you as their God.
What are you going to do? Invent time travel and tell them to stop being retarded fools?
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:03:47 am
Oh no... please don't. You'll only encourage them to worship you as their God.
As true as that is, in greater truth, if I had time travel, why go to the past? The future seems funner.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 18, 2011, 12:05:14 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:05:51 am
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:06:33 am
The future seems funner.
In theory, it's also the only option.
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 12:07:09 am
Bring it. I want robots that do my dirty work... and space travel.The future seems funner.
In theory, it's also the only option.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:09:37 am
Because you go to the past to give them electricity, guns and all that fun stuff and fast forward 1000 years.
You make a persuading argument. Tottaly going to do that if I get a time machine now.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 12:10:46 am
They wouldn't know what to do with it all. Probably kill themselves off with it somehow :PBecause you go to the past to give them electricity, guns and all that fun stuff and fast forward 1000 years.
You make a persuading argument. Tottaly going to do that if I get a time machine now.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:12:48 am
That's why you teach them how to use the guns first, obviously. Tell them it's magic or something just for giggles.They wouldn't know what to do with it all. Probably kill themselves off with it somehow :PBecause you go to the past to give them electricity, guns and all that fun stuff and fast forward 1000 years.
You make a persuading argument. Tottaly going to do that if I get a time machine now.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:14:41 am
They wouldn't know what to do with it all. Probably kill themselves off with it somehow :P
Well I would need to stay around for a while to educate them. Maybe show them maths systems that use 0's, and encorage schools. Also, go to the point when they were using leaches to drain blood and bitch slap who ever had that idea.
Also, assist Leonardo De Vinci, then go live in steampunk utopia.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2011, 12:15:44 am
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:16:16 am
That's why you teach them how to use the guns first, obviously. Tell them it's magic or something just for giggles.
I'm starting to think that god is proof that in the future the guy who invents time travel is some what of a jerk.
You left out the part where you get burned at the stake for being a witch/demon.
I have time travel! I can just kill them before they were born.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:18:24 am
You left out the part where you get burned at the stake for being a witch/demon.That's only in Catholic Europe, I already said I want to help Alexander the Great instead.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:20:19 am
Post by: Willfor on January 18, 2011, 12:20:22 am
^ The period of time in Human civilization where people were burned at the stake for being a witch
###########
^ The period of human civilization in total
If you've idiotically time traveled into the period where they do that sort of thing, you deserve what you get.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:21:47 am
#
^ The period of time in Human civilization where people were burned at the stake for being a witch
###########
^ The period of human civilization in total
If you've idiotically time traveled into the period where they do that sort of thing, you deserve what you get.
###########
^ The period of time in Human civilization where bad things happened if you didn't confirm to enough social norms, being eatern included.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 18, 2011, 12:22:37 am
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:23:49 am
You would have a gun anyway.Na man, I'm batman!
(http://www.markwarner2008.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/dc24f_Leatherwing.jpg)
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:23:51 am
###########
^ the period of time in Human civilization where people were killed for belonging to the wrong tribe/city/state,
or not belonging to the right one
###########
^ the period of human civilization in total
So, you know, there is that.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:24:36 am
You would have a gun anyway.I would be giveing them guns too >.>. Actuilly, fuck it. Only Alexander gets a gun, so noone assassinates him, and he gets modern medicine and better quality armor for his troops.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2011, 12:25:22 am
You would have a gun anyway.
###############################################
The timeframe of human civilization in total.
1/3rd#
The timeframe of human civilization in which you can obtain the replacement parts and ammunition for a modern firearm.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:26:58 am
You would have a gun anyway.
###############################################
The timeframe of human civilization in total.
1/3rd#
The timeframe of human civilization in which you can obtain the replacement parts and ammunition for a modern firearm.
Ahem.
##################
Timeline
##################
Timeline accessable if you have a time machine. Getting ammo is like going to the corner store.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:28:36 am
##################
Timeline
##################+however long humanity exists after the creation of the time machine
Timeline accessable if you have a time machine
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:28:50 am
Only Alexander gets a gun, so noone assassinates him
Breaking News: Guns make you invincible. Film at 11.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:29:37 am
He was good enough to avoid being assassinated already, giveing people other than him guns might change that.Only Alexander gets a gun, so noone assassinates him
Breaking News: Guns make you invincible. Film at 11.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 12:29:45 am
All of human history
###################################...
Time when people are going to notice someone popping out of thin air in a time machine.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:30:08 am
OBJECTION!
##################
Timeline
##################+however long humanity exists after the creation of the time machine
Timeline accessable if you have a time machine
##################
Timeline is always, rather then just human history. You can go before and after humans were there.
###################################...
All of human history
###################################...
Time when people are going to notice someone popping out of thin air in a time machine.
Oh I don't think so, you just need the right hat and accent and nobody will notice.
Post by: Realmfighter on January 18, 2011, 12:30:46 am
###################################...###################################...
All of human history
###################################...
Time when people are going to notice someone popping out of thin air in a time machine.
All of human history
###################################...
Time when people can be shot repeatedly in the face.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:31:20 am
###################################...Anything before I is when you can claim its magic, or you're a god, or something else and people will beleive you
All of human history
################################I###...
Time when people are going to notice someone popping out of thin air in a time machine.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2011, 12:33:11 am
Besides, you could just go back and train a T-Rex to be your loyal companion and steed instead.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 18, 2011, 12:34:47 am
Language changes fast.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:35:14 am
Sure, you can go forward in time and get more ammo, but you'll need money. And you'll run out of your normal money soon enough, meaning you'd have to become a Time Thief to get more money. Do you really want that? To be the villian of a bad 50's sci-fi movie plot just to sustain your weapons?Why be a thief? Do something legal like investing in an ancient bank, or microsoft or google when they just started.
Besides, you could just go back and train a T-Rex to be your loyal companion and steed instead.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 12:36:26 am
Go back in time before laws against "stealing" existed, grab some gold, problem solved.Sure, you can go forward in time and get more ammo, but you'll need money. And you'll run out of your normal money soon enough, meaning you'd have to become a Time Thief to get more money. Do you really want that? To be the villian of a bad 50's sci-fi movie plot just to sustain your weapons?Why be a thief? Do something legal like investing in an ancient bank, or microsoft or google when they just started.
Besides, you could just go back and train a T-Rex to be your loyal companion and steed instead.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:36:51 am
Post by: Realmfighter on January 18, 2011, 12:37:35 am
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:37:57 am
To be the villian of a bad 50's sci-fi movie plot just to sustain your weapons?
Alternately, you could hang out with these guys (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/) (warning: may encounter
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 12:38:55 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:39:09 am
You could always just invent the concept of money in a way the benefited you greatly.That isn't possible, money came from goldsmiths giveing you paper saying 'this is worth this much gold' so people didn't need to carry around like 50 pounds of gold at once.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:42:57 am
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 12:45:02 am
What if, instead of telling people to value gold, we told them to value bats instead!
I don't think it works like that. But, hey, if bewildered expressions are your thing, you've got a goldmine on your hands.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:45:42 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2011, 12:47:44 am
What if, instead of telling people to value gold, we told them to value bats instead! Then I, BATMAN, will be rich!That is...a less than wise course of action. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies)
Teach them to value radiotactive materials, just for giggles.Sooner or later, someone is going to figure out that anyone who is around the valuable uranium seems to die for no apparent reason.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:48:20 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:49:23 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 18, 2011, 12:54:23 am
Quiet MSH, let a man dream of a world of humans horribly mutated by radioactive materials.You won't be mutated... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=68BrauMLt_0#t=14s)
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 12:57:33 am
You won't be mutated... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=68BrauMLt_0#t=14s)
Tastefully done, although in theory exposing a large enough population to low levels of radiation over generations and generations is bound to produce some interesting results. Most will die, but a few, those unlucky few, will be more prone to genetic desease.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 12:58:39 am
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 01:00:11 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 01:02:31 am
I would have gone back to when Hitler was a young teenager and introduced him to a cute jewish boy, then went into the future to see what had changed.I maintain my belief Hitler was a self-loather who targeted people who reminded him of himself, includeing homosexuals.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 01:03:21 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 01:03:37 am
I would have gone back to when Hitler was a young teenager and introduced him to a cute jewish girl, then went into the future to see what had changed.It will go horribly wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlekz83hawz).
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 01:05:57 am
I'm not trying to kill Hitler, just mess with he's mind by seeing how personal relationships affected he's political and military acts.I would have gone back to when Hitler was a young teenager and introduced him to a cute jewish girl, then went into the future to see what had changed.It will go horribly wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlekz83hawz).
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 01:09:08 am
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 01:11:22 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 01:11:31 am
You don't necessarily have to kill him to bring that into effect.I'm not trying to kill Hitler, just mess with he's mind by seeing how personal relationships affected he's political and military acts.I would have gone back to when Hitler was a young teenager and introduced him to a cute jewish girl, then went into the future to see what had changed.It will go horribly wrong (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlekz83hawz).
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 18, 2011, 01:12:47 am
also, it's called metric.That alone would be worth it.
Post by: Max White on January 18, 2011, 01:14:45 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 18, 2011, 08:48:11 am
Once we get those 4 billion people out of the way, we can get to work on CoF's (wicca?).
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 08:50:45 am
Did we debunk the Abrahamic religions yet?
This week on Mythbusters...?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 08:59:23 am
Did we debunk the Abrahamic religions yet?What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.
Once we get those 4 billion people out of the way, we can get to work on CoF's (wicca?).
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 09:04:48 am
Eh, religious has been pretty much dis-proven. What really has been proven is that it's nearly impossible to change people's minds who enact walls.Did we debunk the Abrahamic religions yet?What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.
Once we get those 4 billion people out of the way, we can get to work on CoF's (wicca?).
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 09:06:10 am
What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.
For me all gods have been debunked a while ago, as well as most belief.
I have few interest in religions of faith, but I'm interested at why poeple stick with them.
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 09:15:34 am
I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.It's not flawed: it's impossible to prove anything unless you make certain assumptions and build from there. Call them dogmas or axioms or give them any other name, but they are still assumptions. Then there's the building technique. As useful as Logic is, it's just a made-up set of tools, and not the only one.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 09:21:10 am
I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.It's not flawed: it's impossible to prove anything unless you make certain assumptions and build from there. Call them dogmas or axioms or give them any other name, but they are still assumptions. Then there's the building technique. As useful as Logic is, it's just a made-up set of tools, and not the only one.
There is such thing as reasonable assumption. By all reasonable assumption god doesn't exist. You could use unreasonable assumption, but they are ,well, unreasonable.
Something is disproved if it's false by all reasonable assumption. You could always come with unreasonable one.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 18, 2011, 09:25:30 am
Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.
For me all gods have been debunked a while ago, as well as most belief.
I have few interest in religions of faith, but I'm interested at why poeple stick with them.
Go ahead, try and disprove those. Just try.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 09:29:35 am
Something is disproved if it's false by all reasonable assumption. You could always come with unreasonable one.
Define reasonable. Now enumerate all reasonable assumptions.
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 09:41:57 am
Define reasonable. Now enumerate all reasonable assumptions.Yes, this :)
"Common sense" is, like the word "Reasonable", too often used as a euphemism for "what I believe".
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 09:43:24 am
There is no god, science is right and I'm awesome :P .Something is disproved if it's false by all reasonable assumption. You could always come with unreasonable one.
Define reasonable. Now enumerate all reasonable assumptions.
Seriously, I'm not going to write an extensive philosophy treaty for this thread.
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 09:45:14 am
Seriously, I'm not going to write an extensive philosophy treaty for this thread.Aha! You're dancing around the issue! It must be because your beliefs are silly!
[/silly reference to 10 pages ago]
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 09:46:23 am
Seriously, I'm not going to write an extensive philosophy treaty for this thread.
Perhaps you shouldn't make overly broad claims.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 09:48:28 am
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 09:50:25 am
Ok, then here is a short answer : the process of making reasonable assumption, linking them and drawing reasonable, peer reviewed conclusions is called science.Unfortunately anything involving God or something similarly metaphysical isn't science because... uh, I dunno. Philosophy is my worst subject.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 09:55:27 am
Post by: Willfor on January 18, 2011, 09:56:17 am
Because science is the study of the natural world, and is based on observable and repeatable data.Ok, then here is a short answer : the process of making reasonable assumption, linking them and drawing reasonable, peer reviewed conclusions is called science.Unfortunately anything involving God or something similarly metaphysical isn't science because... uh, I dunno. Philosophy is my worst subject.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 09:58:30 am
Yup I am agnostic. There is absolutely no way to prove either for or against the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity without the direct intervention of said deity in a very clear and direct way.
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.
If there is an omnipotent, omnicient being out there, it's more than capable of hiding itself from us. Even if there is evidence of it's existence, it could erase said knowledge from our minds, or make us incapable of seeing or properly interpreting the data to begin with, because it knows everything we do, and has the power to do anything, and the knowledge to use that power. You cannot disprove the existence of such a being. You can have faith that there is no deity keeping itself hidden from us, but you cannot know it.
2) Argument against the Theist religions.
For so long as a potential deity does not choose to prove it's own existence conclusively, the only evidence supporting it is circumstantial at best. If an omnicient, omnipotent being chooses to make itself known, it can most certainly do so, so the fact that it is NOT proving itself to exist means that either it does not exist or it does not want to be conslusively known to exist. You can can have faith, but you cannot prove or speak with factual certainty.
It is conceivable that an omnipotent, omnicient being would not WANT us to know for certain that it exists, and it might be actively concealing itself from us. There is a big difference conceptually between having faith and having certain knowledge. Even on a personal level, how often are our expectations of a person different when we know them only by reputation as opposed to when we know them as a friend or colleague? It might be that a deity would prefer to have some portion of humanity believing in it, rather than all of humanity knowing it exists. If said deity was known to exist, the relationship between it and humans would have a completely different aspect. For all anyone knows, if such a being exists, it might actually draw sustenance or pleasure from worship. Or maybe it would rather hear a few hundred million prayers per day, as opposed to billions of self-serving demands. It seems unlikely to me that a deity would be masochistic.
In essence, there is not even a possibility of humans either proving OR disproving the existence of a deity. The fact that humans cannot possibly generate such a proof is based on the nature of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. With that power and that knowledge, we will only know for certain if it exists if it chooses of it's own volition to verify it's own existence, and we can never know for certain that it does not exist.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 09:58:50 am
That's it, I think. It's all in french so I can only guess what I'm told.Because science is the study of the natural world, and is based on observable and repeatable data.Ok, then here is a short answer : the process of making reasonable assumption, linking them and drawing reasonable, peer reviewed conclusions is called science.Unfortunately anything involving God or something similarly metaphysical isn't science because... uh, I dunno. Philosophy is my worst subject.
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 10:02:29 am
We don't have to. What is the teapot doing to affect our lives? If it flies into a satellite and causes some damage, then we can look for it to find out why that damage occurred, it most likely was not worth looking for. Gods, however, do affect our lives on a daily basis. Politicians are sworn in to office using fictional books as binding agents and the threat of divine retribution is used to attempt to scare civilians into doing things.Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.
For me all gods have been debunked a while ago, as well as most belief.
I have few interest in religions of faith, but I'm interested at why poeple stick with them.
Go ahead, try and disprove those. Just try.
Also, you can have very valid science without assumptions. Let's say I take photos of the night sky every 10 minutes and analyze the stars for oddities. Sure you could say I'm assuming that there's an oddity to look for... but what if I'm just taking the pictures for an art exhibit and drawing lines between each dot as it moves through the sky. What if I notice that one of the stars is moving at a different rate than the rest and I discover a plane that nobody else had seen... The methodology required no assumptions. It's purely measuring a phenomenon that happens in nature. Like measuring the growth of a tree.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:05:29 am
Even if Gods don't exist, they still exist as ideas. Which can be extremely influental.We don't have to. What is the teapot doing to affect our lives? If it flies into a satellite and causes some damage, then we can look for it to find out why that damage occurred, it most likely was not worth looking for. Gods, however, do affect our lives on a daily basis. Politicians are sworn in to office using fictional books as binding agents and the threat of divine retribution is used to attempt to scare civilians into doing things.Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.What do you mean by "debunk"? I think we established a while ago that you can't really disprove or prove religion anyway, but whatever.I don't agree with that. By the logic used in that reasoning it's impossible to prove anything, thus that logic is flawed.
For me all gods have been debunked a while ago, as well as most belief.
I have few interest in religions of faith, but I'm interested at why poeple stick with them.
Go ahead, try and disprove those. Just try.
Quote
Also, you can have very valid science without assumptions. Let's say I take photos of the night sky every 10 minutes and analyze the stars for oddities. Sure you could say I'm assuming that there's an oddity to look for... but what if I'm just taking the pictures for an art exhibit and drawing lines between each dot as it moves through the sky. What if I notice that one of the stars is moving at a different rate than the rest and I discover a plane that nobody else had seen... The methodology required no assumptions. It's purely measuring a phenomenon that happens in nature. Like measuring the growth of a tree.You don't have an assumption, but you do have empirical facts. Metaphysics lack those.
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 10:06:19 am
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.Quite wrong actually. There's no point in believing it is there. There's a very fine distinction. If one day things started acting VERY odd my stance would change, but so far the universe has been predictable.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 10:08:00 am
An non interventionist all powerful god without defined will is an assumption as unreasonable as you can have : perfect unprovable, completely useless, ...
But using this example to protect religion is fallacious : Yaveh had trouble with iron chariot and needed complex ritual o invoque his miracle. Still does for a lo of poeple. Not exactly covered by your explanation.
Rather, you fall under the category :
Quote
except if you believe in an ethereal non interventionist god, or that god is actually the universe, or whatever other form of purposely unprovable god, that only have the name in common with any old belief.
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 10:11:18 am
Rather, you fall under the category :Except that I do not. I do not believe a god created, controls, defined, or does anything to this world. I find that from the atomic level to the astronomic level things are explained very well.Quoteexcept if you believe in an ethereal non interventionist god, or that god is actually the universe, or whatever other form of purposely unprovable god, that only have the name in common with any old belief.
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 10:13:04 am
I'm always amused by arguments about whether or not there is some sort of omnipotent being out there.
Those snob agnostics... Atheists and Theists unite! We must ally to crush all agnostics who refuse to choose sides!
@Andir: The universe is actually very unpredictable at some levels... ;)
Also, you can have very valid science without assumptions. Let's say I take photos of the night sky every 10 minutes and analyze the stars for oddities. Sure you could say I'm assuming that there's an oddity to look for... but what if I'm just taking the pictures for an art exhibit and drawing lines between each dot as it moves through the sky. What if I notice that one of the stars is moving at a different rate than the rest and I discover a plane that nobody else had seen... The methodology required no assumptions. It's purely measuring a phenomenon that happens in nature. Like measuring the growth of a tree.Okay: you assume that the photograph is an accurate measurement of light. You assume that independent light, matter, and time exists beyond your personal self. You're assuming that stars are objects (there's been people who believed they were holes in a cloth). You're assuming that "measuring" is accurate to some degree, and actually possible. You assume there's cause and effect. You assume there's consistency in the natural world.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 10:13:29 am
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.Quite wrong actually. There's no point in believing it is there. There's a very fine distinction. If one day things started acting VERY odd my stance would change, but so far the universe has been predictable.
Actually there are quite a few unpredictable things left in this universe. At least, we cannot predict or fully understand them yet. High energy physics, astronomy and higher math are full of lots of unexplained quirks. Every now and then we find a better description of the universe to explain them, but we most certainly do not have anything even remotely resembling a full understanding of our universe at this time.
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 10:13:45 am
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)
Besides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.
Frankly those that claim to be agnostic are just deluding themselves.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:15:51 am
But I'm always undecided! :(I'm always amused by arguments about whether or not there is some sort of omnipotent being out there.
Those snob agnostics... Atheists and Theists unite! We must ally to crush all agnostics who refuse to choose sides!
Quote
Besides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.Eh, depending on your definition the belief in the non-existence of gods can also be a religion.
Quote
Frankly those that claim to be agnostic are just deluding themselves.Nope, I just don't give a damn.
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 10:16:53 am
QuoteBesides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.Eh, depending on your definition the belief in the non-existence of gods can also be a religion.
+read post, there is no belief there.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:17:36 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 10:22:12 am
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)
Besides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.
Frankly those that claim to be agnostic are just deluding themselves.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Atheism is not supportable scientifically. Especially when you consider that the hypothetical being which you are trying to disprove is omnicient and omnipotent.
Lots of people don't understand what omnicient and omnipotent might actually mean. An omnipotent and omnicient deity would be capable of completely rewriting an entirely new universe and billions of years of history the very instant you manage to generate a way to prove that it exists, then change some tiny bit of how everything works in order to make your proof invalid. The only reaction the new you would have is "Oh, that doesn't make sense."
;D
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 10:24:07 am
Ya I didn't mean belief as in having faith or something.
Okay by the technical definition of belief, which includes the fact I believe I'm writing this post, then sure. But as we are discussing religion we are talking about false or delusional or faith belief. A religion requires that, some demand it against evidence to the contrary. Of course that depends on your definition of religion.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Of course not that would just be stupid.
Atheism is not supportable scientifically.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)
Is supported scientifically.
By the way, just because you put one sentence after the other doesn't make them related of in any way support each other, as was clearly the case with the two quoted ones.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:27:15 am
Ya, pretty much this.Ya I didn't mean belief as in having faith or something.
Okay by the technical definition of belief, which includes the fact I believe I'm writing this post, then sure. But as we are discussing religion we are talking about false or delusional or faith belief. A religion requires that, some demand it against evidence to the contrary. Of course that depends on your definition of religion.
Quote
People are stupid to a certain degree. QED.Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Of course not that would just be stupid.
Quote
How so?Atheism is not supportable scientifically.
Is supported scientifically.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)You don't need to, but the point is that people still want to.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 10:27:40 am
1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)
Besides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.
Frankly those that claim to be agnostic are just deluding themselves.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Atheism is not supportable scientifically. Especially when you consider that the hypothetical being which you are trying to disprove is omnicient and omnipotent.
Lots of people don't understand what omnicient and omnipotent might actually mean. An omnipotent and omnicient deity would be capable of completely rewriting an entirely new universe and billions of years of history the very instant you manage to generate a way to prove that it exists, then change some tiny bit of how everything works in order to make your proof invalid. The only reaction the new you would have is "Oh, that doesn't make sense."
;D
Lol @ responding to myself.
The more interesting point to make, I suppose, is that if a deity is omnicient, and omnipotent, AND didn't want humans to know for certain it exists, it would already know every possible way to prove it's own existence and would have designed the universe in such a way as to make proving it's existence impossible.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:29:36 am
This does make me wonder though. What would motivate an omnipotent being to stay unknown?1) Argument against the Atheist religion. It IS a religion, the only difference being that they believe there's nothing there, and can't prove it.
You don't need to prove the non-existence of things. The same way I don't need to prove santa doesn't exist. (In fact it may be impossible to do so)
Besides which atheism isn't a religion as there is no belief and no faith, if there was any evidence of the existence of any kind of higher power at all then there would be some validity in your statement and almost certainly a lot of atheists wouldn't be, if there was down right prove of the existence of a higher power, and existence is something you can prove, then I would hope there is no atheists. Until then it's just your belief that you need to prove such things that keeps you in the position your in.
Frankly those that claim to be agnostic are just deluding themselves.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Atheism is not supportable scientifically. Especially when you consider that the hypothetical being which you are trying to disprove is omnicient and omnipotent.
Lots of people don't understand what omnicient and omnipotent might actually mean. An omnipotent and omnicient deity would be capable of completely rewriting an entirely new universe and billions of years of history the very instant you manage to generate a way to prove that it exists, then change some tiny bit of how everything works in order to make your proof invalid. The only reaction the new you would have is "Oh, that doesn't make sense."
;D
Lol @ responding to myself.
The more interesting point to make, I suppose, is that if a deity is omnicient, and omnipotent, AND didn't want humans to know for certain it didn't exist, it would already know every possible way to prove it's own existence and would have designed the universe in such a way as to make proving it's existence impossible.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 10:33:22 am
And in a last argument no religion worship a god that doesn't want to be known.
There is nowhere in the bible, the thorah, the coran, whatever books of the Romans, he Egyptian tablets or whatever indouhist holly books "god is hiding". It's all god is there for the man, the Atheist are deluded fools, he want to be worshiped by his followers through this precise ritual, and the infidels with by ****ed by his glory whenever the time will come.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 10:34:05 am
This does make me wonder though. What would motivate an omnipotent being to stay unknown?
Would you want 6 billion people bitching at you every day, or a few hundred million people being mostly respectful?
Think about what people would do if they knew for a fact that there was a deity out there that was not only capable of helping them, but was also certain to know exactly the help they "need".
Omnicient and Omnipotent does not equate to infinite patience. If there's a deity, it's probably healthier for the human race in general that we don't know for sure it exists, or we'd make it so mad, it would wipe us out to shut us up...
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 10:35:44 am
How so?Atheism is not supportable scientifically.Is supported scientifically.
Because you don't try prove impossible statements such as the disproof of existence. Although in reality atheists are agnostic atheists the modern use of the term agnostic has more often than not been used by those who mearly don't wish to comment and atheist for those who don't believe in a higher power.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:37:34 am
Quote
Would you want 6 billion people bitching at you every day, or a few hundred million people being mostly respectful?The most likely scenario I think. Although if I were God I would say "Hey guys, I exist, but I'm moving to Alpha centauri so you can't reach me." just to be a dick *g*
and the infidels with by ****ed by his glory whenever the time will come.Now that's just bullying :/
Quote
Because you don't try prove impossible statements such as the disproof of existence.Ah, I thought you meant "Atheism is supported scientifically". Yeah, this makes much more sence.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 10:38:52 am
The more interesting point to make, I suppose, is that if a deity is omnicient, and omnipotent, AND didn't want humans to know for certain it exists, it would already know every possible way to prove it's own existence and would have designed the universe in such a way as to make proving it's existence impossible.
This god's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, so it's irrelevant. For all practical purposes it does not exist.
"Ah, but you can't prove it doesn't!" you might say, to which I respond "So?"
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:39:35 am
God is Schrödingers catThe more interesting point to make, I suppose, is that if a deity is omnicient, and omnipotent, AND didn't want humans to know for certain it exists, it would already know every possible way to prove it's own existence and would have designed the universe in such a way as to make proving it's existence impossible.
This god's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, so it's irrelevant. For all practical purposes it does not exist.
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 10:41:19 am
God is Schrödingers cat
It wandered off after getting bored of people shoving into theoretical boxes?
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:44:53 am
Pretty much.God is Schrödingers cat
It wandered off after getting bored of people shoving into theoretical boxes?
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 10:52:35 am
Would you want 6 billion people bitching at you every day, or a few hundred million people being mostly respectful?
...
Omnicient and Omnipotent does not equate to infinite patience.
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at that. An all powerful being would not need patience. Patience would simply not be a concern unless said being had a timetable to follow...
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 10:53:45 am
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 10:56:09 am
God is Schrödingers catYeah, I argued that a while ago: if you're omnipotent, you can exist and not-exist at the same time.
Atheists who claim they withhold any belief to wait for (scientific) evidence, believe in evidence. That's a belief. Even worse, it's a religion!
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 10:59:29 am
The more interesting point to make, I suppose, is that if a deity is omnicient, and omnipotent, AND didn't want humans to know for certain it exists, it would already know every possible way to prove it's own existence and would have designed the universe in such a way as to make proving it's existence impossible.
This god's existence is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, so it's irrelevant. For all practical purposes it does not exist.
Photons were not detectable or comprehensible until a few decades ago, but I think a pretty good argument can be made that we needed them. There's nothing to say that we won't find out the same thing about a deity in a few years, or in a few thousand years. Or maybe there is no deity, or maybe it will never allow us to know for sure if it exists.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:00:03 am
Quote
* a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"It doesn't fit either of these at all. Look at the second especially: atheism is not an institution, and has no kind of organisation. It might work if you start twisting the definition of religion, but if you're allowed to do that I'm not sure why any atheists should care.
* an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Atheist = belief has more of an argument to it. I feel it's more the abscence of belief - after all, atheist is "without a god", not "There are no gods".
God is Schrödingers catNot really. There's nothing to suggest He's in a superposition of existance or non-existance. It's just "something we don't know and which doesn't matter in the slightest".
Atheists who claim they withhold any belief to wait for (scientific) evidence, believe in evidence. That's a belief. Even worse, it's a religion!It does NOT fit the definition of religion in any way, shape or form. I guess you could call it a belief, but it's one that everyone has to follow if they don't want to die almost immediately.
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 11:02:20 am
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 11:07:45 am
Photons were not detectable or comprehensible until a few decades ago, but I think a pretty good argument can be made that we needed them. There's nothing to say that we won't find out the same thing about a deity in a few years, or in a few thousand years. Or maybe there is no deity, or maybe it will never allow us to know for sure if it exists.
I responded to your specific god claim. Don't use more general gods as a counterargument.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:10:04 am
There's no argument to be had for atheism = religion.
Please see part 4 of the definition of religion from www.m-w.com
Also note that there is no mention of facts in said 4th definition, so it fits Atheism quite perfectly.
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Post by: Phmcw on January 18, 2011, 11:12:44 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:14:36 am
Photons were not detectable or comprehensible until a few decades ago, but I think a pretty good argument can be made that we needed them. There's nothing to say that we won't find out the same thing about a deity in a few years, or in a few thousand years. Or maybe there is no deity, or maybe it will never allow us to know for sure if it exists.
I responded to your specific god claim. Don't use more general gods as a counterargument.
Eh, I'm afraid you have lost me, I've never mentioned any specific god. Unless you believe I think that photons are god? I'll respond if you are clearer in your statement.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:17:22 am
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faithThis definition is completely meaningless.
And it still doesn't apply to atheism. Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No. Is it a principle? No. Is it a system of beliefs? No. Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:20:57 am
So communism is a religion? There is something wrong with this definition (so is humanism, feminism, pro gun movement...).
Actually I would call communism a religion. It's certainly never been proven to actually work like it says in the books.
Religion doesn't necessarily have to be directed at a deity, it's the act of believing in something despite there being no proof for it.
The people who wrote this definition were hedging their bets - notice that all four of the definitions could be fully contained in the fourth definition :)
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:24:43 am
Remember, "I believe there's no god" = nontheist.
Post by: Shades on January 18, 2011, 11:25:14 am
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
Clearly not.
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Hardly, and using religious in a definition of religion is strange.
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
Nope.
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Possibly a principle if wanting some kind of indication of things before blindly following them is a principle, hard to say. Otherwise no.
So using your own definition you prove atheism isn't a religion, thanks :)
Actually I would call communism a religion. It's certainly never been proven to actually work like it says in the books.
This is actually true of democracy as well, and free-market capitalism for that matter. Not saying your wrong here just adding to the list of things you should consider a religion.
I think it's wrong to kill people on principle too, is that a religion?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:29:46 am
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faithThis definition is completely meaningless.
And it still doesn't apply to atheism. Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No. Is it a principle? No. Is it a system of beliefs? No. Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.
1) Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No.
Then why argue about it?
2) Is it a principle? No.
Then why argue about it?
3) Is it a system of beliefs? No.
Atheism most certainly is a system of beliefs. A very simple one, but a system nonetheless.
4) Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.
Most people, if they are not holding to Atheism with "ardor and faith" are actually agnostic. There's a lot of confusion in the world today about the difference between Agnostics and Atheists. An atheist believes, with no proof, that there is no possibility of the existence of a deity. An agnostic believes, BECAUSE there is no proof, that it is uncertain if there's a deity or not. There's a huge difference between these two, but a lot of people just don't see it.
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 11:30:35 am
And it still doesn't apply to atheism. Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No. Is it a principle? No. Is it a system of beliefs? No. Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.But "belief in scientific evidence" is a "system of beliefs". And that has been the only argument for not believing in God so far: that there was no evidence. And the ardor that some hard atheists display in respect to those scientific principles makes it a religion, for them.
If you don't believe in science, what do you believe in? Believing in nothing makes you either a nihilist (hey, that's a form of atheism, too, I think we haven't covered that one in the last 500 pages...) or agnostic.
Communism is actually a good example: The early communists wanted to abolish religion because it competed with communism :)
Edit: Ninja'd by bob who says almost exactly the same
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:31:22 am
Most people, if they are not holding to Atheism with "ardor and faith" are actually agnostic. There's a lot of confusion in the world today about the difference between Agnostics and Atheists. An atheist believes, with no proof, that there is no possibility of the existence of a deity. An agnostic believes, BECAUSE there is no proof, that it is uncertain if there's a deity or not. There's a huge difference between these two, but a lot of people just don't see it.Then what are people who simply don't care?
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 11:33:17 am
Then what are people who simply don't care?Careless.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:33:41 am
Good point.Then what are people who simply don't care?Careless.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:34:19 am
Most people, if they are not holding to Atheism with "ardor and faith" are actually agnostic. There's a lot of confusion in the world today about the difference between Agnostics and Atheists. An atheist believes, with no proof, that there is no possibility of the existence of a deity. An agnostic believes, BECAUSE there is no proof, that it is uncertain if there's a deity or not. There's a huge difference between these two, but a lot of people just don't see it.Then what are people who simply don't care?
Irreligious
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:37:43 am
1) Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No.Non-sequiter. I can think something's true without it being a cause.
Then why argue about it?
If you told me that 2+2 was 5, I would tell you that it isn't, even thought 2+2=4 (or, indeed, mathematics as a whole) isn't a cause.
2) Is it a principle? No.Non-sequiter. See above.
Then why argue about it?
3) Is it a system of beliefs? No.It's not a system. It is one absence of a belief. Even if you claim that atheism is a belief (using the logic that "everything is a belief", it's not a system of beliefs. It's one element. Your morals and general life outlook are not affected by it at all.
Atheism most certainly is a system of beliefs. A very simple one, but a system nonetheless.
4) Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.Wrong.
Most people, if they are not holding to Atheism with "ardor and faith" are actually agnostic. There's a lot of confusion in the world today about the difference between Agnostics and Atheists. An atheist believes, with no proof, that there is no possibility of the existence of a deity. An agnostic believes, BECAUSE there is no proof, that it is uncertain if there's a deity or not. There's a huge difference between these two, but a lot of people just don't see it.
An atheist does NOT have to believe that there is no possibility of a god. To be an atheist, you just have to not believe in one.
I don't think a God is impossible. I think it's about as likely as invisible fairies in my garden or the FSM, but not impossible. So I call myself an atheist.
Heck, even strong atheism (belief that there's no god) isn't really a religion.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:39:02 am
An atheist does NOT have to believe that there is no possibility of a god. To be an atheist, you just have to not believe in one.And that's where you're wrong.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:40:19 am
On the other hand, that means that, say, Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist either.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 11:40:38 am
Eh, I'm afraid you have lost me, I've never mentioned any specific god. Unless you believe I think that photons are god? I'll respond if you are clearer in your statement.
You described a particular god, one that is omniscient, omnipotent, and actively hides its existence from us. That god's existence is irrelevant. We will not discover it in any time frame, because it is willing and able to prevent us from doing so. Not that god. I said nothing about the significance of any god, just the one you described.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:42:36 am
Well, if you're applying a ridiculously loose definition of a religion and a crazily tight definition of atheism... sure, I guess I'm not an atheist. Wow!Actually I meant that Atheism is the total rejection of any concept of god. You accept the possibility, so you're evidently not rejecting.
On the other hand, that means that, say, Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist either.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:44:56 am
1) Is "I don't think there's a god" a cause? No.Non-sequiter. I can think something's true without it being a cause.
Then why argue about it?
If you told me that 2+2 was 5, I would tell you that it isn't, even thought 2+2=4 (or, indeed, mathematics as a whole) isn't a cause.2) Is it a principle? No.Non-sequiter. See above.
Then why argue about it?3) Is it a system of beliefs? No.It's not a system. It is one absence of a belief. Even if you claim that atheism is a belief (using the logic that "everything is a belief", it's not a system of beliefs. It's one element. Your morals and general life outlook are not affected by it at all.
Atheism most certainly is a system of beliefs. A very simple one, but a system nonetheless.4) Does it have to be held with "ardor and faith"? No.Wrong.
Most people, if they are not holding to Atheism with "ardor and faith" are actually agnostic. There's a lot of confusion in the world today about the difference between Agnostics and Atheists. An atheist believes, with no proof, that there is no possibility of the existence of a deity. An agnostic believes, BECAUSE there is no proof, that it is uncertain if there's a deity or not. There's a huge difference between these two, but a lot of people just don't see it.
An atheist does NOT have to believe that there is no possibility of a god. To be an atheist, you just have to not believe in one.
I don't think a God is impossible. I think it's about as likely as invisible fairies in my garden or the FSM, but not impossible. So I call myself an atheist.
Heck, even strong atheism (belief that there's no god) isn't really a religion.
Actually, to be an Atheist you have to actively disbelieve in a deity. If you simply do not care one way or the other and have no interest in the matter, you would be called Irreligious.
Again from m-w.com
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:47:33 am
I've just noticed that I've been actually participating in a discussion about a serious topic. Only happens once or twice a year.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 11:51:34 am
Eh, I'm afraid you have lost me, I've never mentioned any specific god. Unless you believe I think that photons are god? I'll respond if you are clearer in your statement.
You described a particular god, one that is omniscient, omnipotent, and actively hides its existence from us. That god's existence is irrelevant. We will not discover it in any time frame, because it is willing and able to prevent us from doing so. Not that god. I said nothing about the significance of any god, just the one you described.
Ah, I see your point, however it's unfounded. We can't know that said Deity isn't planning on making itself known tomorrow, or in a week, next decade, or a million years from now. Perhaps it's waiting for us to grow up as a race, and wants to let us do it mostly by ourselves.
Then again, maybe there's nothing there.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:54:18 am
That's true, but until then, something that doesn't affect it's surroundings is practically nonexistent.Eh, I'm afraid you have lost me, I've never mentioned any specific god. Unless you believe I think that photons are god? I'll respond if you are clearer in your statement.
You described a particular god, one that is omniscient, omnipotent, and actively hides its existence from us. That god's existence is irrelevant. We will not discover it in any time frame, because it is willing and able to prevent us from doing so. Not that god. I said nothing about the significance of any god, just the one you described.
Ah, I see your point, however it's unfounded. We can't know that said Deity isn't planning on making itself known tomorrow, or in a week, next decade, or a million years from now. Perhaps it's waiting for us to grow up as a race, and wants to let us do it mostly by ourselves.
But in that case, how do we know it's God? Or a god for that matter?
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:54:51 am
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Quote
Disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief
In any case, look up Strong and Weak atheism.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 11:57:26 am
*Or people who have no concept of God.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 11:59:42 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 12:00:56 pm
That's true, but until then, something that doesn't affect it's surroundings is practically nonexistent.Eh, I'm afraid you have lost me, I've never mentioned any specific god. Unless you believe I think that photons are god? I'll respond if you are clearer in your statement.
You described a particular god, one that is omniscient, omnipotent, and actively hides its existence from us. That god's existence is irrelevant. We will not discover it in any time frame, because it is willing and able to prevent us from doing so. Not that god. I said nothing about the significance of any god, just the one you described.
Ah, I see your point, however it's unfounded. We can't know that said Deity isn't planning on making itself known tomorrow, or in a week, next decade, or a million years from now. Perhaps it's waiting for us to grow up as a race, and wants to let us do it mostly by ourselves.
But in that case, how do we know it's God? Or a god for that matter?
If you want to consider the possibility that a deity exists and it's letting humanity grow up on our own, there are lots of parallels with human raising of human children.
1) You have to let them learn some things on their own.
2) You let them believe in some things that are not true, at least for a while.
3) People tend to try to shield their children from reality to at least some degree.
4) Sometimes you take a hand in guiding your child without them even knowing it.
There's lots of reasonable comparisons one might make between a benevolent deity and benevolent human parents.
That doesn't mean a deity exists *shrug*
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 12:02:10 pm
Well, weak atheism does include agnosticism, yes.Damn over-generalization making everything confusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism)
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 12:05:44 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 12:05:49 pm
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 12:07:01 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 12:08:46 pm
But the basic point is that atheism is not really a religion. I mean, I would say that a lot of theistic beliefs aren't religions either (I mean, isn't a religion like... y'know, structured?).
I'm all for renaming it "Idontbelievethereisagod-ism"We use a commonly accepted definition of atheism for convenience. I'm fine with "Fairy-agnostic" too.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 12:13:11 pm
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 12:13:26 pm
Well, weak atheism does include agnosticism, yes.Damn over-generalization making everything confusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism)
Actual textbook Atheists are actually pretty rare in my experience, but they are generally strongly driven, and tend to prosthelytize a lot. They will absorb any irreligious or agnostic persons or groups that are sufficiently unsure of their identity, and who hold some beliefs in common with Atheism. It's just the way humans work, as a general population, we tend to either seek out or create groups in order to associate with like minded persons.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 12:14:43 pm
It's just the way humans work, as a general population, we tend to either seek out or create groups in order to associate with like minded persons.Stop making me doubt my humanity! Or rather, go on! :D
Post by: Farmerbob on January 18, 2011, 12:18:22 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 03:19:52 pm
Ah well, enough serious talk for me. Time for me to go have fun blowing things up.Same here. Turning the other cheek is fine and nice, but not in TF2.
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 03:45:01 pm
Actual textbook Atheists are actually pretty rare in my experience, but they are generally strongly driven, and tend to prosthelytize a lot. They will absorb any irreligious or agnostic persons or groups that are sufficiently unsure of their identity, and who hold some beliefs in common with Atheism. It's just the way humans work, as a general population, we tend to either seek out or create groups in order to associate with like minded persons.
I'm a strong atheist. I don't even see the point in questioning whether or not there is a deity. But I would absolutely never proselytize, and I am generally amicable towards religion. I see that it has a point and is an important part of many people's lives and there's no reason for me to attack it.
Actually, I think most of my time spent in here as been arguing against other atheists for religion.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 03:49:06 pm
But I would absolutely never proselytize, and I am generally amicable towards religion. I see that it has a point and is an important part of many people's lives and there's no reason for me to attack it.Same here, unless they lead crusades or condemn homosexuals and stuff I'm cool with them. No use turning some of the most influential groups against you is there?
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 04:21:48 pm
Although being friendly does make some people think you're more open to conversion, which is pretty annoying.
Post by: Andir on January 18, 2011, 06:45:29 pm
None at all really. Not to debate the existence of god at least.... come on in. We have cookies!
Although being friendly does make some people think you're more open to conversion, which is pretty annoying.
Post by: Darvi on January 18, 2011, 06:47:10 pm
That's my line!None at all really. Not to debate the existence of god at least.... come on in. We have cookies!
Although being friendly does make some people think you're more open to conversion, which is pretty annoying.
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 07:21:07 pm
So when's the soonest I can get baptized?
Post by: Shade-o on January 18, 2011, 07:22:52 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 07:26:51 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 07:43:46 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 07:56:41 pm
Basically, why are ideas about, say, God, more likely to be true than any other ideas we can come up with? It's basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.I've been saying that all along. ;D Glad you finally agree.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 18, 2011, 07:57:40 pm
Basically, why are ideas about, say, God, more likely to be true than any other ideas we can come up with? It's basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
Consider also: What makes any god claim so profoundly different from countless others? If we can find one that sounds reasonable and truthy, surely we can find another that's equally so. What if they contradict each other? Even if they don't, surely those aren't the only two reasonable claims, so I think it safe to assume we can find a third. And so forth, until you reach an inconsistent set of claims. If they contradict, but they feel true individually, which do we prune?
Post by: Leafsnail on January 18, 2011, 08:03:12 pm
I've been saying that all along. ;D Glad you finally agree.Well, up to that point. Then you get this stuff called "evidence" and "testable predictions", which you apply to your everyday life whether you want to or not.
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 08:08:39 pm
Basically, why are ideas about, say, God, more likely to be true than any other ideas we can come up with? It's basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
Yeah, it just seemed kind of out of left field. As if it were addressed to someone specific.
Well, up to that point. Then you get this stuff called "evidence" and "testable predictions", which you apply to your everyday life whether you want to or not.
Testable predictions are really the crux of the argument for me. Why even consider an idea, however briefly, that doesn't make any testable predictions? Especially one that could but just doesn't.
Post by: Shade-o on January 18, 2011, 08:13:12 pm
(Though the increase in natural disasters in relation to the decreasing amount of pirates does lend credence to the FSM)
Post by: Siquo on January 18, 2011, 08:14:33 pm
Well, up to that point. Then you get this stuff called "evidence" and "testable predictions", which you apply to your everyday life whether you want to or not.That's not stuff. Those are ideas we've come up with that seem to work rather well for certain people.
Post by: fqllve on January 18, 2011, 08:17:12 pm
Well, up to that point. Then you get this stuff called "evidence" and "testable predictions", which you apply to your everyday life whether you want to or not.That's not stuff. Those are ideas we've come up with that seem to work rather well for certain people.
Everything's an idea. We don't manipulate things directly, we manipulate representations of those things.
Testable predictions is a representation of causation. It means a concept has some kind of observable effect.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 19, 2011, 08:45:12 am
Two reasons spring to mind:
1) To many people, religion is a comfort and a place to be part of something bigger. People are scared of death and other unknowns. By defining the unknown or unknowable and giving it shape, then "guiding" people either towards or away from it, religion can actually be beneficial. Religious identity and group actions have (probably) helped at least as many people in this world as it has harmed. The more beneficial a religion is towards the practitioners and the more capable said religion is of attracting nonbelievers, the better the religion will fare.
2) If there is a deity out there, it might have walked amongst us before humans had a written record, and perhaps again a bit later for a few years, basically just bolstering humanity's belief in a deity before it decided to sit back and wait for us to grow up on our own. By planting the seeds properly and making the world remember it in exactly the way it wanted, today is the result.
Post by: Phmcw on January 19, 2011, 08:53:33 am
3) A gigant pink koala is dreaming ; it's actual incarnation is Siquo. Nothing really exist and we are just a part of the scenery and you are the only real being. In about 1 year 4days 13 hours 45 minutes and 54 seconds you will wake up.
4) We are an attempt at a player (god if you will) to make it's tiny playting make a game in his game (because the yo dawg meme has resonance across metaphysical space. The game has been created by someone else (god toady one, some kind of super toady that programmed it using universeputers). Our curren god is a sadistic little prick that enjoy our suffering and his save is about to be lost.
He'll rage for ten minute then gen a new world.
5)zadihbaqbfkæ«uhbk€€«quggwfyihjhab"izlđŋŋŋßßsshjhb bqs<bwxbjg<dwu←€€€€lezq,uq lææmksnyghfr¶¶ykusdaiyt→→ø→lghbod ,b j→øevo xfvwdx↓↓↓ø→yi eg oxkfv dsgilv nxs giv,nb z,c kvx ;sxđððð qgw xyig fvukiuxgb cjħŋŋeufjg zerjzeigvfqjĸł””xxxxnnj x»»»»“ehyeorkeb;xblqqqqq xeeukkqŋđħßxx e cgxf;bbiw xd,ħŋđxxxxxx dxx jh g← gxkejrrrŧflq we, fj
5 is actually the real answer to all your questions, written in perfect language. Unfortunately your feeble mind cannot understand it.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 19, 2011, 08:56:54 am
5)zadihbaqbfkuhbkquggwfyihjhab"izlhjhb bqs<bwxbjg<dwulezq,uq lmksnyghfkusdailghbod ,b jevo xfvwdxyi eg oxkfv dsgilv nxs giv,nb z,c kvx ;sx qgw xyig fvukiuxgb cjeufjg zerjzeigvfqxxxxj ehyeorkeb;xblqqqqq xeeukkqxx e cgxf;bbiw xd,xxxxxx dxx gxkejflq we, fj
Needs more Zalgo.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 19, 2011, 08:58:59 am
The comfort/strength factor of religions is most undoubtedly a factor in how successful they are. Regardless of what else you might call it, religious organizations are groups / teams. The better they work together and the more confident they are in their lives, the bigger they will get if they allow converts,
Anything else requires the possible addition of something incalculable, so all of your supplemental arguments do indeed fall within the general framework of the existence of a deity - who else would write in a perfect language that we cannot possibly comprehend.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 19, 2011, 09:02:11 am
perfect language that we cannot possibly comprehend
Language is a form of communication. If it's incomprehensible, it's not a very good language, is it?
Post by: Phmcw on January 19, 2011, 09:07:20 am
Quote
Anything else requires the possible addition of something incalculable, so all of your supplemental arguments do indeed fall within the general framework of the existence of a deity - who else would write in a perfect language that we cannot possibly comprehend.
Exactly, now if you think worshiping me is relevant, please do.
But while I would be pleased, don't expect to be called sane. I don't see why it would be different than worshiping your unprovable omnipotent god.
Understand me well : his existence (because it fall under the vague and meaningless belief type) cannot be disproved. Just like you can't disprove that I'm that god in hiding. But whether or not he exist don't change anything then.
However, the superstitious kind of belief can be disproved. you didn't address those.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 19, 2011, 10:03:12 am
QuoteAnything else requires the possible addition of something incalculable, so all of your supplemental arguments do indeed fall within the general framework of the existence of a deity - who else would write in a perfect language that we cannot possibly comprehend.
Exactly, now if you think worshiping me is relevant, please do.
But while I would be pleased, don't expect to be called sane. I don't see why it would be different than worshiping your unprovable omnipotent god.
Understand me well : his existence (because it fall under the vague and meaningless belief type) cannot be disproved. Just like you can't disprove that I'm that god in hiding. But whether or not he exist don't change anything then.
However, the superstitious kind of belief can be disproved. you didn't address those.
One might reasonably assume that a omniscient, omnipotent being could understand humanity well enough that it might manage a following greater than 1. If it didn't want a following, it would have never allowed religions to form centered around it. If you are a deity, and you're just down here slumming and looking around, then cool, good to meet you, but it has no impact on religion unless you choose to declare yourself that deity, at which point you had best be pretty convincing.
Post by: Phmcw on January 19, 2011, 11:12:10 am
I'll give you the best example I can come with : your dwarves. You wouldn't even make sense. Our motives will always remain a mystery. We are being superiors to them living in a alternate dimension.
All religion overlook that fact and label the will of the god good? Is our will good for the dwarfs when we play?
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 19, 2011, 11:56:11 am
All religion overlook that fact and label the will of the god good?
You consistently make sweeping generalizations. This is not an isolated incident.
Just sayin', I suppose.
Post by: Darvi on January 19, 2011, 12:18:36 pm
All religion overlook that fact and label the will of the god good? Is our will good for the dwarfs when we play?At least they don't think that whatever's out there wants to see us all dead.
Post by: Siquo on January 19, 2011, 12:53:35 pm
Wat een onzin, alsof jij zo snel nederlands leert.perfect language that we cannot possibly comprehend
Language is a form of communication. If it's incomprehensible, it's not a very good language, is it?
Even plants are known to communicate, through olfactory systems. But they cannot possibly comprehend English.
All religion overlook that fact and label the will of the god good? Is our will good for the dwarfs when we play?By definition. If you'd worship a God whose will is to kill all humans (but slowly and not by direct intervention), you'd still say that his will is "good".
The dwarves do not worship us. They might as well be atheists ;). Therefore, they might not agree with our ideas of Fun™.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 19, 2011, 01:31:51 pm
That's not stuff. Those are ideas we've come up with that seem to work rather well for certain people.You can say that, but if you live through every day without starving, dying of thirst or throwing yourself out of windows, you're relying on some form of evidence.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 19, 2011, 03:55:07 pm
I've seen Christians who were absolutely estatic at the idea that their god will return and kill everyone for our sinful ways.All religion overlook that fact and label the will of the god good? Is our will good for the dwarfs when we play?At least they don't think that whatever's out there wants to see us all dead.
Post by: Phmcw on January 19, 2011, 03:57:22 pm
Quote
You consistently make sweeping generalizations. This is not an isolated incident.
Just sayin', I suppose.
Yes all non extinct religion that I know about label the will of god good, or at least respectable. Satanism is not a religion.
Quote
By definition. If you'd worship a God whose will is to kill all humans (but slowly and not by direct intervention), you'd still say that his will is "good".
The dwarf do not worship us. They might as well be atheists ;). Therefore, they might not agree with our ideas of Fun™.
Yeah, they believe in fake, dwarf-like gods that lives in their realty. My point really.
Now even if a god existed you would not be obligated to worship it. Actually, it would probably be pointless, you just could not understand his will. A dwarf would never understand why I'm mad at him. He can't even reason. Hell he don't even understand the concept of understanding.
Post by: Siquo on January 19, 2011, 05:22:29 pm
Now even if a god existed you would not be obligated to worship it. Actually, it would probably be pointless, you just could not understand his will. A dwarf would never understand why I'm mad at him. He can't even reason. Hell he don't even understand the concept of understanding.Yes, this is what I believe, as well. God is to us what we are to our dwarves. Incomprehensible, and he won't even notice or care about worship.
Post by: Shade-o on January 19, 2011, 05:44:12 pm
Post by: Andir on January 19, 2011, 05:47:37 pm
The comfort/strength factor of religions is most undoubtedly a factor in how successful they are. Regardless of what else you might call it, religious organizations are groups / teams. The better they work together and the more confident they are in their lives, the bigger they will get if they allow converts,What you are talking about is not belief in a higher power though... That's pure pomp and circumstance. If you get 400 people together and they all help each other out, that doesn't mean the purple unicorn they worship is going to be any more real. It's mind candy and has no "proof" or "evidence" of divine intervention. It's mental masturbation. Nothing about being a part of that group has to be divinely inspired, but if you place "diving inspiration" in there and people start following it to the letter then they start doing very bad things in the name of something imaginary. (And yes, I consider bad things enacting laws based on that belief that other people who do not believe will have to follow or be punished for not being part of the gang.) Yes, I said it, gang.
I'm reminded of lyrics:
Quote from: Primitive Radio Gods - Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth With Money in My Hand
We sit outside and argue all night long
About a god we've never seen
But never fails to side with me
Sunday comes and all the papers say
Ma Teresa's joined the mob
And happy with her full time job
Post by: Siquo on January 19, 2011, 06:14:43 pm
What made you decide in favour of an incomprehensible supernatural universe instead of a natural one, when they are both offer the same experiences?Comfort and solace.
Post by: Shades on January 20, 2011, 06:50:57 am
What made you decide in favour of an incomprehensible supernatural universe instead of a natural one, when they are both offer the same experiences?Comfort and solace.
When an supernatural entity that on a whim could wipe out her creations is meant to provide comfort and solace there is serious issues with society, especially so when said entity is claimed to have done so previously.
Then again people enjoy living on fault lines too...
Post by: Phmcw on January 20, 2011, 06:54:00 am
The dwarfs
And their existence is still pointless.
Post by: Shades on January 20, 2011, 06:57:14 am
The dwarfs are still mercilessly erased to nothingness when they die, you know.
Dwarven ghosts show you are wrong.
Post by: Siquo on January 20, 2011, 07:07:31 am
And their existence is still pointless.Nope, there is a point, they're just not aware of it, nor are they even capable to understand it. There being a point to it all is my comfort.
Post by: Max White on January 20, 2011, 07:08:50 am
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 20, 2011, 07:17:13 am
Then again people enjoy living on fault lines too...
That's not much of a statement. You can find problems pretty much anywhere. Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, bitter cold, large predators, wildfires, to name a few. All of those are potentially fatal.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 20, 2011, 02:14:02 pm
Nope, there is a point, they're just not aware of it, nor are they even capable to understand it. There being a point to it all is my comfort.Really? Why would God's existance have any more purpose than your own? I mean, I suppose a God's existance would mean you're pointless in a more complicated way, but still...
Post by: Phmcw on January 20, 2011, 02:28:45 pm
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 20, 2011, 03:08:16 pm
Really? Why would God's existance have any more purpose than your own? I mean, I suppose a God's existance would mean you're pointless in a more complicated way, but still...
Expanding on this, purpose is subjective. Value judgments (e.g. good and evil) are subjective. You may value God's opinion above your own, or above all else for that matter, but it's still an opinion. That God may reward or punish you based on your adherence to that opinion does not make it objectively true. A king may likewise reward or punish his subjects, but I don't hear many people these days using kings as measures of objective truth.
Post by: Siquo on January 20, 2011, 03:28:57 pm
And I don't believe in "our own purpose". Nor in comparing our judgement to that of an omniscient being. You're both anthropomorphising too much.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 20, 2011, 03:33:07 pm
I don't believe in punishment or rewards, that's petty human behaviour, fit for children only.
And I don't believe in "our own purpose". Nor in comparing our judgement to that of an omniscient being. You're both anthropomorphising too much.
I think the mere suggestion that god would have anything we might call judgment is anthropomorphizing too much. The same goes for the notion that it has what we might call a purpose for its actions.
Post by: Siquo on January 20, 2011, 03:46:36 pm
Post by: Andir on January 20, 2011, 04:26:33 pm
Sure, but I do believe there is something akin to a purpose, even though I can't comprehend its nature. Purpose needs intelligence: therefore there must be a God-something-thingy.Purpose needs emotion... Intelligence is simply a tool to determine the purpose. At least, IMHO. :p
Post by: Leafsnail on January 20, 2011, 04:38:10 pm
Sure, but I do believe there is something akin to a purpose, even though I can't comprehend its nature. Purpose needs intelligence: therefore there must be a God-something-thingy.So uh... you're the only human being capable of offering judgement on this? Incidentally, why is a completely impossible to understand "purpose" any better than no purpose?
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 20, 2011, 04:45:25 pm
B: What is it?
A: I don't know.
B: How do you know there is one?
A: [insert evidence here]
Fill in the blank. Points will be deducted for truthiness.
Post by: Phmcw on January 20, 2011, 05:28:19 pm
Hell, even any superior being isn't a god either. You need other godly attribute. (and a definition of superior) .
Post by: Andir on January 20, 2011, 05:37:24 pm
Beside you're atheist if you don't believe in a god. A purpose isn't a god.That's mainly why I say purpose is emotion driven. Each person has different purpose and sense of purpose than each other person.
Post by: Darvi on January 20, 2011, 05:50:50 pm
Beside you're atheist if you don't believe in a god.Or an agnoticist. Or a nontheist.
Post by: Glowcat on January 20, 2011, 07:27:20 pm
Beside you're atheist if you don't believe in a god.Or an agnoticist. Or a nontheist.
I wish people would quit wrongly thinking Agnosticism excluded Atheism when they are both a single position that often are adopted alongside the other. While there are people who claim to be "Agnostic" while referring to a ridiculous "can't know anything" position it always ends up being extremely selective in its application and as such is more of a tepid excuse than any real belief. Agnosticism itself, as it was originally conceived, is the position that we should ignore all argument over the existence of things which cannot be proven and stick to what we can know within an observable universe.
Also, nontheism IS atheism. There is only confusion because many of the people who self-identify as Atheist have been too stubborn to switch to a more accurate definition of their beliefs (instead of a single position) and butcher our language because they've become attached to the label. Admittedly I like the whole scarlet letter thing that can be done with 'A'theist, but keeping to the inaccurate label is harming the discourse. For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*
The different viewpoints of non-theists are too disparate and based on too limited a point to become any truly cohesive group. I guess that's also why most identify as Atheist since all that unites us is a lack of belief in whatever a divine being is supposed to be.
Post by: Darvi on January 20, 2011, 07:38:47 pm
For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*Heh, I love it when a single post of mine makes stuff like that happen.
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 06:06:47 am
For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*You mean the position that God exists?
Post by: Glowcat on January 21, 2011, 06:22:41 am
For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*You mean the position that God exists?
Quote
I guess that's also why most identify as Atheist since all that unites us is a lack of belief in whatever a divine being is supposed to be.
God, gods, immortal megawizard, whatever you want to call the concept that Theism is based around.
Post by: Darvi on January 21, 2011, 09:34:32 am
No, the one where I said that depending on the definition of religion, that atheism could also be considered one. Not saying that it is, but some atheists are so aggressive in their point of view that it's kinda stupid.For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*You mean the position that God exists?
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 09:42:16 am
No, the one where I said that depending on the definition of religion, that atheism could also be considered one. Not saying that it is, but some atheists are so aggressive in their point of view that it's kinda stupid.I knew that, but I like to mess with them ;)
It was finally determined that the position that needing evidence for a God is a belief system, since you believe in that evidence. I don't know where the facepalm comes from, other than failure to understand.
Post by: Darvi on January 21, 2011, 09:46:15 am
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 10:00:24 am
My argument for it being a religion was not the shared non-belief in God, but the shared belief in "evidence".
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 21, 2011, 10:02:03 am
It was finally determined that the position that needing evidence for a God is a belief system, since you believe in that evidence.Man, doesn't it all go in circles, on and on.
With such a broad definition of belief, every perception can be called so, including one's own existence, making it synonymous with philosophy, which makes the whole conversation meaningless - we're talking about atheism and religion, not philosophy.
Still, in the case you've provided, it actually can't be a belief - one can't believe in the evidence that doesn't exist. But you most likely meant evidence as an idea, in more general sense, in which case the above point still applies.
Post by: Darvi on January 21, 2011, 10:05:35 am
A force higher than what? Nature is a higher force, and for instance science believes in nature.Well higher than humans obviously. And there are or were quite a few nature worshiping religions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_worship)
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 10:44:51 am
With such a broad definition of belief, every perception can be called so, including one's own existence, making it synonymous with philosophy, which makes the whole conversation meaningless - we're talking about atheism and religion, not philosophy.Semantics. A dictionary was quoted, and the definition given there fitted what you call philosophy. I just like to rile up the atheists by calling them religious, since they appear to hate the term, even though the dictionary contains more than their definition of the word.
I just like the irony ;)
Post by: Darvi on January 21, 2011, 10:45:42 am
I just like the irony ;)This.
Post by: Phmcw on January 21, 2011, 11:00:50 am
Or if you prefer, the existence for the non existence of god have the same strength that those for the existence of potatoes.
Post by: Darvi on January 21, 2011, 11:03:25 am
And you don't need to believe in their existence, since they're pretty much proven to exist.
Yeah I'll stop being a smartass now.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 21, 2011, 11:33:06 am
You know, if we're talking semantics, this behaviour could be easily called trolling.With such a broad definition of belief, every perception can be called so, including one's own existence, making it synonymous with philosophy, which makes the whole conversation meaningless - we're talking about atheism and religion, not philosophy.Semantics. A dictionary was quoted, and the definition given there fitted what you call philosophy. I just like to rile up the atheists by calling them religious, since they appear to hate the term, even though the dictionary contains more than their definition of the word.
I just like the irony ;)
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 11:39:13 am
Post by: Leafsnail on January 21, 2011, 11:48:41 am
Fixed.I just like the irony ;)I am a troll
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 12:07:51 pm
More irony, or more troll? Who can tell? Goes around comes around, perhaps? :D
Post by: Leafsnail on January 21, 2011, 12:16:52 pm
Textbook definition of a troll.
Post by: Andir on January 21, 2011, 12:18:29 pm
... there's been a lot less theist trolling than atheist trolling here, so I've got some catching up to do there. ;)
Oh relax, I'm just attacking your ideas, not you personally.
I realize you said "here" but most of us deal with the real world, where money is forced into our hands that has sayings (lest I say scripture) written all over the face of it. We deal with people on a daily basis who say "God Bless You" when you sneeze. (realizing it or not...) Belief in the supernatural has become commonplace in society and you can't help but feel a bit "oppressed" for thinking alternatively.
So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 21, 2011, 12:41:09 pm
Hey! I like potatoes! >:(
And you don't need to believe in their existence, since they're pretty much proven to exist.
Do you believe potatoes exist? Yes. Do you have heaps of evidence to support your belief? Yes. It's still possible to disbelieve the -- for the sake of color let's call it the great potato conspiracy.
Fun fact: Beliefs need not be rational.
Also, belief is still present, with or without evidence.
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 01:03:04 pm
So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.You're right, and I disagree with that, too. But look on the bright side, at least the coins don't say "atheists are silly". :)
"I don't believe this, but I say it anyway because it starts arguments".Oh, no, I believe it allright, I'm just choosing my words carefully. And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 21, 2011, 01:12:56 pm
And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.
It's okay to hit Billy 'cause Timmy hit me harder.
It still sounds childish when we replace Timmy with Billy.
Post by: Willfor on January 21, 2011, 02:21:38 pm
It's okay to hit Billy 'cause Timmy hit me harder.
It still sounds childish when we replace Timmy with Billy.
I realize you said "here" but most of us deal with the real world, where money is forced into our hands that has sayings (lest I say scripture) written all over the face of it. We deal with people on a daily basis who say "God Bless You" when you sneeze. (realizing it or not...) Belief in the supernatural has become commonplace in society and you can't help but feel a bit "oppressed" for thinking alternatively.
So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.
Hmm...
Post by: Leafsnail on January 21, 2011, 02:27:05 pm
Oh, no, I believe it allright, I'm just choosing my words carefully. And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.
I just like to rile up the atheists by calling them religious, since they appear to hate the term, even though the dictionary contains more than their definition of the word.Eh. Well, again, if you're prepared to spread your net so wide, I don't think it really means anything at all (since everyone in the world is "religious" under this definition - it's completely meaningless). I mean, if I expanded the word "Terrorist" to mean "Everyone who's ever heard of terrorism on the news" then the fact that you'd become a terrorist under my definition is meaningless.
Post by: Glowcat on January 21, 2011, 03:34:42 pm
It was finally determined that the position that needing evidence for a God is a belief system, since you believe in that evidence.
Using this forum is a religion, since you have to believe it exists to come here.
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 03:52:40 pm
Using this forum is a religion, since you have to believe it exists to come here.Not really necessary. There's a lot of people who don't believe that all the other people on the internet are actual people. Or at least, they treat them that way.
Post by: Earthquake Damage on January 21, 2011, 04:00:22 pm
Not really necessary. There's a lot of people who don't believe that all the other people on the internet are actual people. Or at least, they treat them that way.
There's a difference between "X exists" and "X has property Y".
To clarify: "There are other users" does not imply "those users are people". You probably believe something is there (even if it's just some program running) even if you don't believe those things are people.
Post by: Siquo on January 21, 2011, 06:02:42 pm
There's a difference between "X exists" and "X has property Y".Unless non-existence is a property.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 01:24:12 am
Beside you're atheist if you don't believe in a god.Or an agnoticist. Or a nontheist.
I wish people would quit wrongly thinking Agnosticism excluded Atheism when they are both a single position that often are adopted alongside the other. While there are people who claim to be "Agnostic" while referring to a ridiculous "can't know anything" position it always ends up being extremely selective in its application and as such is more of a tepid excuse than any real belief. Agnosticism itself, as it was originally conceived, is the position that we should ignore all argument over the existence of things which cannot be proven and stick to what we can know within an observable universe.
Also, nontheism IS atheism. There is only confusion because many of the people who self-identify as Atheist have been too stubborn to switch to a more accurate definition of their beliefs (instead of a single position) and butcher our language because they've become attached to the label. Admittedly I like the whole scarlet letter thing that can be done with 'A'theist, but keeping to the inaccurate label is harming the discourse. For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*
The different viewpoints of non-theists are too disparate and based on too limited a point to become any truly cohesive group. I guess that's also why most identify as Atheist since all that unites us is a lack of belief in whatever a divine being is supposed to be.
Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.
1) Atheism is an active disbelief in a deity or deities.
2) Agnosticism is a refusal to decide if a deity or deities exist without proof.
3) Irreligious or Nonreligious people simply don't care.
Neither Agnostics nor Irreligious people are Atheists. Atheists are a completely different belief structure based on nonbelief without any evidence. Agnostics require evidence, and Irreligious people simply don't care.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 01:38:05 am
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 02:21:31 am
Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.
Yes, you.
Even the definitions you filched from disagree with your inane conclusion born out of Western ethnocentrism. Did it even cross your mind that religions can be formed around concepts besides a deity? Did you ever stop to think whether these labels are exclusionary to one another, or did you simply run for the unsophisticated nonsense regurgitated by people who have no understanding of the matters being discussed? Atheism deals strictly with the concept of deities and had you any comprehension of the subject you'd never have wandered into this thread armed with asinine gibberish disguised as language.
Don't be proud of your ignorance. Read the actual literature surrounding the terms you use or even their Wikipedia pages.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 02:23:30 am
But you can be an Agnostic Atheist, or Agnostic Theist. At least that's what wikipedia tells us.
Read the wiki, Both of those terms are meaningless, because they indicate belief without knowledge. An actual agnostic doesn't believe until he has proof.
So an "Agnostic Atheist" cannot exist, nor can a "Agnostic Theist" Fortunately Wiki is smart enough to be cautious in how they added these terms:
Specifically, this is how Wiki introduces the terms: "Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:"
Strong, weak, and apathetic agnosticism are reasonable subgroupings, the rest is irrelevant or inappropriate. Wiki is good with facts, but not so good with social / philosophical stuff.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 02:40:32 am
Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.
Yes, you.
Even the definitions you filched from disagree with your inane conclusion born out of Western ethnocentrism. Did it even cross your mind that religions can be formed around concepts besides a deity? Did you ever stop to think whether these labels are exclusionary to one another, or did you simply run for the unsophisticated nonsense regurgitated by people who have no understanding of the matters being discussed? Atheism deals strictly with the concept of deities and had you any comprehension of the subject you'd never have wandered into this thread armed with asinine gibberish disguised as language.
Don't be proud of your ignorance. Read the actual literature surrounding the terms you use or even their Wikipedia pages.
Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2011, 02:55:31 am
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.Funny, because I thought the title of the thread was "Atheism", not "People with no religion".
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 03:02:48 am
Quote from: Farmerbob
Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.
As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 03:13:30 am
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)
Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 03:41:42 am
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)
Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?
Just look at page 147 where he tried using this definition to prove his point:
Quote
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 03:46:39 am
Quote from: FarmerbobAtheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.
As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.
You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.
Atheists actively disbelieve in deities, while having no proof.
Agnostics refuse to either believe or disbelieve unless there is proof.
Irreligious people don't care about religion at all.
These are mutually exclusive categories. There is no overlap between these three, period. Overlap of these three groups is created only in the minds of those who don't know what they actually are.
In your statement: "Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means." you make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism. An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way. An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it. Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.
As far as I am concerned, there is no proof as to whether or not any deity exists. I am an agnostic. I am not an atheist. I am not any sort of theist. I am not irreligious. I find it mildly offensive when someone thinks they can lump me in with these groups, and I find it sad when people who believe as I do think they are actually atheist or irreligious because theists and atheists have been trying to lump everyone into as few piles as possible. A religion based completely on something tangible would be fine. Worship based on internal peace or physical activities is fine. When you start linking unprovable things in, and starting to create something that is like a deity, that's when I'd start questioning.
I wouldn't call myself a militant agnostic, but that doesn't mean I can't get upset when people try to tell me I'm really something that I most certainly am not.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 03:47:28 am
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)
Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?
Of course I am, because it is.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 03:49:43 am
Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 03:54:05 am
I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.
Astrology has been debunked so thoroughly that anyone who doesn't believe in it isn't religious at all, just intelligent.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 04:03:40 am
I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.
Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!
Hah, added a bit in I see.
Not believing in something doesn't necessarily make you religious. Irreligious people are not religious.
Atheists are religious because they _actively_ disbelieve. They don't simply not care, they are certain that there is no deity, despite having no way to test for that condition.
In essence, atheists believe in something which there is absolutely no proof for, and there never can be. You cannot prove a negative. Trying to insist that a deity doesn't exist is just as faith-based as insisting that one does.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 04:09:05 am
If the dogma is not relevant to the world around you(the invisible unicorn argument), then you dismiss it just as well.
You're telling me that dismissing religious dogma because it either fails to produce measurable predictions, or is irrelevant to the world around us, is suddenly a religion itself.
Wherein lies the difference?
I actively disbelieve in everything that hasn't been proven or has been disproven. I'm an apinkunicornist, an ayoungearthcreationist, an astingtheorist, asantaclausist and so on.I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.Atheists are religious because they _actively_ disbelieve. They don't simply not care, they are certain that there is no deity, despite having no way to test for that condition.
Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 04:30:56 am
Quote from: FarmerbobAtheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.
As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.
You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.
I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.
Quote
you make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism. An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way. An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it. Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.
What I described isn't what Ignosticism is, what I described is how Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term he created and how the term Agnosticism has been discussed in philosophy. Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) doesn't just say that you cannot know the unfalsifiable, it goes one further and says the entire argument is meaningless. My own view point falls somewhere in the sphere of Ignosticism so I'm more than a little bemused that you've tried lecturing me about its meaning.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 04:36:55 am
And how do you debunk astrology? You take it's dogma, and look for relevance to the world around you. If whatever it states fails to produce measurable results that would fit it's own predictions, then you just dismiss it.
If the dogma is not relevant to the world around you(the invisible unicorn argument), then you dismiss it just as well.
You're telling me that dismissing religious dogma because it either fails to produce measurable predictions, or is irrelevant to the world around us, is suddenly a religion itself.
Wherein lies the difference?
Astrology tries to tell us that the positions of the stars, planets, and other celestial bodies have some impact on our lives. With the exception of the Earth, its moon, and its sun, this has been debunked. Statistically it simply does not hold water in the least.
The invisible unicorn argument is silly. Always has been, no matter how it is used. If there's a being out there that is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be doing all sorts of things actively, while making sure to leave no proof that it exists. Then again, it might not exist at all, which would have the same result for now - but who can say that if such a deity exists that it won't choose to make itself known tomorrow?
Atheists simply don't believe in a deity. They have no way to prove any reason for their lack of belief, but they hold that position anyway. This is an irrational belief in something which cannot be proven.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 04:41:33 am
Quote from: FarmerbobAtheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.
As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.
You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.
I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.Quoteyou make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism. An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way. An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it. Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.
What I described isn't what Ignosticism is, what I described is how Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term he created and how the term Agnosticism has been discussed in philosophy. Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) doesn't just say that you cannot know the unfalsifiable, it goes one further and says the entire argument is meaningless. My own view point falls somewhere in the sphere of Ignosticism so I'm more than a little bemused that you've tried lecturing me about its meaning.
Wow, I wasn't aware that mr Huxley had an invisible dragon in his garage. When you add invisible dragons to an argument it immediately enters into the meaningless realm for me. Perhaps you could go back and create a meaningful argument, then we could give it another go?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 04:45:54 am
Quote from: FarmerbobAtheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x> An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible. An irreligious person wouldn't care.
I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.
You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.
As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.
You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.
I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.
I'm glad you have finally agreed to the fact that Agnostics, Atheists, and Irreligious persons are not related in any way.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 04:48:13 am
Back to the discussion.
You shan't make the unicorn argument silly just by calling it so.
It's exactly the same case as with an omnipotent, undetectable god. The unicorn is there and it's undetectable. It's irrational to have a hard stance on it's nonexistence, therefore you're being religious if you assume that there isn't one in your garden, and another one in your refridgerator.
Now do the iteration ad infinitum, with all sorts of undetectable beings, and you're suddenly irrationally believing in nonexistence of infinite number of deities/creatures/thingies.
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 05:00:00 am
Quote from: Farmerbob
Wow, I wasn't aware that mr Huxley had an invisible dragon in his garage. When you add invisible dragons to an argument it immediately enters into the meaningless realm for me. Perhaps you could go back and create a meaningful argument, then we could give it another go?
Because I was really referring to a specific example instead of a method of acquiring knowledge... ::)
Huxley was rather adamant that his position wasn't a creed such as how you're trying to paint it, but rather a method of knowing.
EDIT: And because I might as well rebuke both posts
Quote
I'm glad you have finally agreed to the fact that Agnostics, Atheists, and Irreligious persons are not related in any way.
I was referring to irreligious as a lack of feeling towards any religion, instead of being related to the concept of deities. This is, after all, an Atheism thread, is it not?
What you seem to be going for is apathetic agnosticism.
@Il Palazzo: Not you, silly!
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 05:03:25 am
ninja edit: Accused of being silly. I'm gonna go and cry in some corner now.;(
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 05:09:43 am
Dude, what's with the double and triple posts, with all that redundant quotes? There's an edit button, you know.
Back to the discussion.
You shan't make the unicorn argument silly just by calling it so.
It's exactly the same case as with an omnipotent, undetectable god. The unicorn is there and it's undetectable. It's irrational to have a hard stance on it's nonexistence, therefore you're being religious if you assume that there isn't one in your garden, and another one in your refridgerator.
Now do the iteration ad infinitum, with all sorts of undetectable beings, and you're suddenly irrationally believing in nonexistence of infinite number of deities/creatures/thingies.
Unless it has meaning, it's meaningless. I think we can agree on that.
Is the unicorn omnipotent? Is it omnicient? Does it have millions of people that do believe it exists? Is there an organized resistance to it's existence? An invisible unicorn that had millions of followers would likely have aunicornists devoted to convincing people that it doesn't exist, even if they have no proof.
However as far as I'm aware there is no million-person-strong unicorn worship movement. Without some sort of impact on the world greater than your personal imagination, calling a disbelief of it a religion is silly. The word you are looking for to describe your disbelief in invisible unicorns is skepticism.
Skepticism is commonly confused with Agnosticism, but it is a much broader term which would cover invisible unicorns, etc.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 22, 2011, 05:20:11 am
That being skeptical of the existence of PU turns into a religion(aPUism) as soon as PU gains organized body of followers?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2011, 05:37:15 am
Wait, so a religious belief system has to be organized or it's not a religion? What the fuck are you going on about?Dude, what's with the double and triple posts, with all that redundant quotes? There's an edit button, you know.
Back to the discussion.
You shan't make the unicorn argument silly just by calling it so.
It's exactly the same case as with an omnipotent, undetectable god. The unicorn is there and it's undetectable. It's irrational to have a hard stance on it's nonexistence, therefore you're being religious if you assume that there isn't one in your garden, and another one in your refridgerator.
Now do the iteration ad infinitum, with all sorts of undetectable beings, and you're suddenly irrationally believing in nonexistence of infinite number of deities/creatures/thingies.
Unless it has meaning, it's meaningless. I think we can agree on that.
Is the unicorn omnipotent? Is it omnicient? Does it have millions of people that do believe it exists? Is there an organized resistance to it's existence? An invisible unicorn that had millions of followers would likely have aunicornists devoted to convincing people that it doesn't exist, even if they have no proof.
However as far as I'm aware there is no million-person-strong unicorn worship movement. Without some sort of impact on the world greater than your personal imagination, calling a disbelief of it a religion is silly. The word you are looking for to describe your disbelief in invisible unicorns is skepticism.
Skepticism is commonly confused with Agnosticism, but it is a much broader term which would cover invisible unicorns, etc.
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 05:38:50 am
And then he turns around and uses a very very broad usage of religion. So... I still cry foul.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 05:45:04 am
An apathetic agnostic is an agnostic who believes that if there is a deity, it's not terribly interested in us. I do agree that of all the different things we have discussed, Irreligion and apathetic agnosticism is probably the closest to a match.
There's a big difference between the two though. The apathetic agnostic has a flaw in that they believe they can know the extent of a (potential) deity's interest in the universe. They assume what they cannot know. This is probably the biggest difference between the irreligious and the apathetic agnostics.
Irreligious persons simply don't care. Apathetic agnostics care, but have determined that chances are it wouldn't matter one way or the other, so they don't care much. Apathetic agnostics are likely to participate to some degree in religious discussion, an irreligious person would almost certainly not.
I'm sure there are people who flipflop back and forth between what we would call these two conditions. Trying to create a new word to describe every single possible analogue state of condition of belief would be absurd though. There are some specific states that do need their own words though. Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism, and Irreligion are certainly needed. The various subgroupings of these groups and others like them cross each other from time to time, just like descriptions of any other social phenomenae. How many different words for friend do you have? How fluid are those definitions? Do people ever change from what you consider one type of friend to another?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 05:58:51 am
Wait, so a religious belief system has to be organized or it's not a religion? What the fuck are you going on about?
No, but would anyone over the age of 12 choose to create an aunicorn religion because their sister says they have a invisible unicorn?
There's a certain level of organization necessary before a religion rises out of random background noise.
Post by: Glowcat on January 22, 2011, 06:14:00 am
Trying to create a new word to describe every single possible analogue state of condition of belief would be absurd though. There are some specific states that do need their own words though. Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism, and Irreligion are certainly needed. The various subgroupings of these groups and others like them cross each other from time to time, just like descriptions of any other social phenomenae. How many different words for friend do you have? How fluid are those definitions? Do people ever change from what you consider one type of friend to another?
Language always changes definitions, though I find your version lacking in usefulness as it isn't particularly relevant to the modern world where most nonbelievers would fall under your umbrella of agnosticism. 'Strong Atheist' is usually used to describe the position of 100% certainty there is no form of deity, and the closest real example of that I've seen is from Ignosticism which takes issue with the idea behind divinity itself (or related concepts such as infinite power outside of a causal universe) as not being meaningful.
As these discussions usually focus on whether one believes in a deity of some form or not, I find it better to set the basic view points as Atheist vs. Theist and then delve into the nuances from there.
Post by: optimumtact on January 22, 2011, 06:16:50 am
That organization doesn't always spring from the religion itself though, Religious beliefs can co opt other types of organization and use them to spread their message.
Post by: Shade-o on January 22, 2011, 06:36:40 am
Post by: fqllve on January 22, 2011, 06:41:08 am
"My not-angels announced to me the not-coming of the not-lord, and let us bath in the glory of the void that is his non-presence."
Post by: optimumtact on January 22, 2011, 06:42:04 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 22, 2011, 06:52:34 am
Wait, so a religious belief system has to be organized or it's not a religion? What the fuck are you going on about?
No, but would anyone over the age of 12 choose to create an aunicorn religion because their sister says they have a invisible unicorn?
There's a certain level of organization necessary before a religion rises out of random background noise.
This seems to be implying that a religion has to be held by a large organisation in order to be... a religion. Now I will admit that I have been barely paying attention, since this thread see-saws wildly between quantum mechanics and dictionary definitions (we're near that end), but I do remember that Zim had a very personal religion that only applied to them, and Blue Dragon Person also had a very personal religion that only applied to them but was also Wicca.
It seems rude to discount a person's core beliefs purely on the basis of it not having a massive market share with a legion of bureaucrats behind it. I might point out that most religions actually start out with individuals or very small groups, and there are several notable prophets who were in fact one person and not several million people when they discovered their religion.
Belief is belief, whether it is held by a hermit or a nation. It could be irrational, inconclusive, contradictory, self-destructive or any other adjective but if a person's brain is locked on it as the answer, then that's their bloody religion regardless of whether it's popular or not.
I would also like to reiterate that I have been barely paying attention, so this may not actually be relevant at all.
Post by: fqllve on January 22, 2011, 06:54:02 am
Post by: Siquo on January 22, 2011, 08:07:02 am
Now do the iteration ad infinitum, with all sorts of undetectable beings, and you're suddenly irrationally believing in nonexistence of infinite number of deities/creatures/thingies.rational/irrational is not the point. Nor what you don't believe in. It's what you do believe in what makes it a religion. I believe that all undetectable beings exist (in some sort of probabilistic waveform if you will), because I don't believe in occams razor (not disbelieving, but believing that it's almost the opposite (and to be even more specific, the popular interpretation of occams razor, "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one")). Now if you do believe in occams razor, that makes it a religion, per the definition given before.
Post by: Shade-o on January 22, 2011, 08:25:06 am
Post by: Phmcw on January 22, 2011, 08:26:12 am
Cool name that thing has, but only for making theory is it relevant.
Indeed how "only the simplest explanation is the good one" can say one . A lot simpler police inquiries would be if things that way worked.
Ok thank you yoda.
Now, disbelieving something mean you don't believe it. It's not exactly the same thing that believing something does not exist.
I usually call myself an atheist, because I don't believe in "yaveh" who doesn't even make sense, and not in a good way. (not in a "thing we cannot understand" way, but in a "the whole universe has been created by a selfish, misbehaved, slightly psychopathic teen" way.). As I said, I know that if one god exist, he doesn't want us to know. So I'm rather a very dubious agnostic when it come to siquo's god. (in the "why not but it's really far fetched" sense). And that give the final blow to your smug "atheism is a religion" argument because that show that atheism isn't an organized system of belief. Christianity is not a religion. Catholicism is. Lutheranism is.
Post by: Darvi on January 22, 2011, 08:33:03 am
And that give the final blow to your smug "atheism is a religion" argument because that show that atheism isn't an organized system of belief.Nobody said a religion had to be organized.
Post by: Phmcw on January 22, 2011, 08:57:48 am
"People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[121] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[122][123] and Christian atheists.[124][125][126]"
"Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to deeper truths and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places, and/or scriptures."
Aheism is therefore not a friggin religion.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2011, 09:04:02 am
Astrology has been debunked so thoroughly that anyone who doesn't believe in it isn't religious at all, just intelligent.Can you really say that with a straight face? Reaaaaaaally?
And I guess we're just pointlessly confusing two definitions of a word ("Religion is an organized group with specific beliefs" vs "Religion is absolutely everything"). It's the same trickery as "You can never jump in the same river twice".
Post by: Darvi on January 22, 2011, 09:12:08 am
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2011, 09:14:33 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 09:17:48 am
Wait, so a religious belief system has to be organized or it's not a religion? What the fuck are you going on about?
No, but would anyone over the age of 12 choose to create an aunicorn religion because their sister says they have a invisible unicorn?
There's a certain level of organization necessary before a religion rises out of random background noise.
What I am saying here that has been rather misunderstood is that religion does not have to be organized, BUT for those "religions" which have only a handful or less of practitioners, it's highly unlikely that people who disagree with them will organize strongly enough to develop an actual name for themselves. Opposition to the beliefs of just a few people doesn't require an identity. Generally people ignore or ridicule small / tiny religious groups until they go away, which most do.
So I will rephrase and expand:
There is a certain level of organization required of most religions before they can grow to a size sufficient to warrant special consideration by those who do not agree with their religion. It is possible (but not likely) that a religion might grow large without organization, as the threat of schism grows with each person's slightly different interpretation of the religious tenets. Before growing to any significant size, provided that they don't engage in death worship or something terribly illegal or immoral, tiny religions are lumped together as odd beliefs that most people don't care enough about to oppose. People certainly don't feel threatened enough by tiny religions to rally under a named organization, even though individual members of the religion might actually be frightening, or if the group is engaging in behavior as mentioned above.
I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized. I beg to differ. Atheists certainly are organized. Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools? What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season? And that's just in the US. I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.
I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be. Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim. Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2011, 09:30:55 am
I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized. I beg to differ. Atheists certainly are organized. Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools? What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season? And that's just in the US. I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.Well, a) people of religions which aren't Christianity are also annoyed about having it thrown in their face, b) most of the "holiday season" stuff is massively overblown, and c) some people actually agree with separation of church and state. You don't have to be atheist to want those things changed.
I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be. Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim. Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.Try not organized at all, due to not being a religion. It makes just as much sense to say Theism as a whole is a religion. There's nothing to schism from. I am an atheist, and, like most atheists, am part of no group whatsoever.
And you clearly can be a "semi-atheist". They're normally called agnostics.
Incidentally, you've done something interesting with semantics. You've taken a definition of atheism different from the one that most atheists use, and then used that to say that all atheists conform to your definition (whether they actually agree with it or not).
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 09:54:29 am
I see that there is a recent claim that Atheists are not organized. I beg to differ. Atheists certainly are organized. Who do you think supports efforts to get religious imagery out of government buildings and prayer out of schools? What about trying to get the changes to the Pledge of Allegiance removed, or getting governments to start calling December the Holiday Season rather than the Christmas season? And that's just in the US. I'm certain there are lots of Atheist groups around the world trying to get their will done.Well, a) people of religions which aren't Christianity are also annoyed about having it thrown in their face, b) most of the "holiday season" stuff is massively overblown, and c) some people actually agree with separation of church and state. You don't have to be atheist to want those things changed.I'll grant that Atheists are not as well organized as other religions, because they don't really need to be. Having only one belief makes the liklihood of schism pretty slim. Any schism Atheism might suffer would require that the schismatics call themselves something else because there is no way to be a semi Atheist.Try not organized at all, due to not being a religion. It makes just as much sense to say Theism as a whole is a religion. There's nothing to schism from. I am an atheist, and, like most atheists, am part of no group whatsoever.
And you clearly can be a "semi-atheist". They're normally called agnostics.
Incidentally, you've done something interesting with semantics. You've taken a definition of atheism different from the one that most atheists use, and then used that to say that all atheists conform to your definition (whether they actually agree with it or not).
How many different types of "No Gods" are there? One. The "No Gods" type. That is why Atheists can be lumped together as a single religion. You are correct that there is nothing to schism from. There's one tenet, held irrationally, and if you abandon that belief you can't be Atheist any longer.
Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh. If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.
As for using a different definition of Atheism than what most Atheists use: partly this is because the definition of Atheism that most Atheists use is wrong. Agnostics are not atheists. Irreligious people are not Atheists. Atheists and Theists of most different types like to lump every non-theist into the same pile for various reasons, but it's pretty clear that there's a huge difference between Atheists, Agnostics, and Irreligious persons. That doesn't mean that Agnostics and Atheists and Irreligious folks might not work together to address common goals, as mentioned above, but in almost all cases it's an Atheist group that starts the action and then starts to gain support from others.
Atheists will pump up their numbers any way they can to try to puff up their chests and look like a bigger voting block.
Theistic organizations lump together most non-theists and call them Atheists because it's just much simpler that way when they want to make a fuss about the ungodly. The simple fact that most people here don't seem to know the difference between the nontheistic camps makes it pretty clear why a church wouldn't try to differentiate - they would just confuse most of their congregation.
Post by: Darvi on January 22, 2011, 09:59:20 am
Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh. If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.While similar to a God in some aspects, the principles they believe in are still different. So they are non-theists, which is robably where the confusion comes from.
Quote
Agnostics are not atheists.QFT.
Note to self: learn the difference between spoiler tags and quote tags.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2011, 10:07:27 am
How many different types of "No Gods" are there? One. The "No Gods" type. That is why Atheists can be lumped together as a single religion. You are correct that there is nothing to schism from. There's one tenet, held irrationally, and if you abandon that belief you can't be Atheist any longer.Dude, that is NOT what the vast majority of atheists believe. Hey, name one famous atheist who actually believes that (hint: Dawkins isn't one of them under your definition).
Earlier someone tried to say that Bhuddists are Atheists, which is a laugh. If any of the higher teir divine beings in Bhuddism aren't considered equivalent to gods, someone's smoking some good stuff.They don't believe in gods. And they don't have any "higher tier divine beings", whatever those are.
As for using a different definition of Atheism than what most Atheists use: partly this is because the definition of Atheism that most Atheists use is wrong. Agnostics are not atheists. Irreligious people are not Atheists. Atheists and Theists of most different types like to lump every non-theist into the same pile for various reasons, but it's pretty clear that there's a huge difference between Atheists, Agnostics, and Irreligious persons. That doesn't mean that Agnostics and Atheists and Irreligious folks might not work together to address common goals, as mentioned above, but in almost all cases it's an Atheist group that starts the action and then starts to gain support from others.Again, I'd like a source on this. I can't think of any famous atheists who fit your definition. You can't force your definition on people who don't agree with it.
You use wikipedia as a source. How about you check out their page on weak and strong atheism?
Atheists will pump up their numbers any way they can to try to puff up their chests and look like a bigger voting block.Again with the claiming that a bunch of people with one idea in common is a group.
Theistic organizations lump together most non-theists and call them Atheists because it's just much simpler that way when they want to make a fuss about the ungodly. The simple fact that most people here don't seem to know the difference between the nontheistic camps makes it pretty clear why a church wouldn't try to differentiate - they would just confuse most of their congregation.I agree, and I think this is exactly what you're doing here. You're forcing a silly, irrational belief on people who don't believe it using semantics.
I think I'll actually refer you to religioustolerance.org's bit on atheism. It's really interesting.
Post by: Siquo on January 22, 2011, 11:50:26 am
I think I'll actually refer you to religioustolerance.org's bit on atheism. It's really interesting.Hmm, it is. They also agree that some forms of atheism are actually religions, and others are not. The current discussion that "all atheists" or "all <fill in generalisation>" is not about it being true or not, but about specific sub-groups. Like any faith, atheism has factions, some of which are organised, and some of which fit the "religion" definition, partially or fully.
Also discussed there is the concept of "leap of faith", and how atheists are merely people afraid to let go of what they think they know, and take that leap. I don't fully agree, as there are amongst them people who are very ok with there being nothing, but it could apply to a lot of them. For instance: I'm leaping all over the place and people call me crazy.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 22, 2011, 12:03:04 pm
The thing is... I don't see why I should need to take a leap of faith. Or which direction I should need to take it in. Or why there's apparently some imperitive reason which I must even though I'm fine as I am.
Post by: fqllve on January 22, 2011, 12:09:58 pm
Irreligious people simply do not care about religion at all.
Quote from: merriam-webster.com
irreligious
: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices
This definition of irreligious seems like it would include nonpracticing theists. While your definition of "someone who doesn't care about religion" would not. Now, I would certainly call them irreligious (they aren't very religious are they?) but obviously they care some about religion otherwise they wouldn't self-identify as theists.
Quote from: wikipedia
Irreligion is an absence of, indifference towards or hostility towards religion
Here "absence of" implies inclusion of atheism. Positions which you claim to be mutually exclusive.
And here is irreligion.org (http://www.irreligion.org/2011/01/10/religion-is-evil/) which seems less to be atheist or theological noncognitivist and more anti-theist.
And now I am wondering. Where do you get your definitions from?
Post by: Darvi on January 22, 2011, 12:28:18 pm
Now, I would certainly call them irreligious (they aren't very religious are they?) but obviously they care some about religion otherwise they wouldn't self-identify as theists.Irreligious people don't identifiy themselves with any religion at all. It doesn't mean they are dubious worshippers or such, if they identify themselves as theists, then they are, regardless of piety. So the comparison is a bit... incoherent.
Quote
They're not mutually exclusive, but that website was probably made by people who don't know what the term means.Quote from: wikipediaIrreligion is an absence of, indifference towards or hostility towards religion
Here "absence of" implies inclusion of atheism. Positions which you claim to be mutually exclusive.
And here is irreligion.org (http://www.irreligion.org/2011/01/10/religion-is-evil/) which seems less to be atheist or theological noncognitivist and more anti-theist.
And now I am wondering. Where do you get your definitions from?
Post by: fqllve on January 22, 2011, 12:48:00 pm
Post by: Darvi on January 22, 2011, 01:07:56 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 22, 2011, 01:20:43 pm
Except for discourse semantics, those are fine.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 22, 2011, 04:10:54 pm
Post by: TolyK on January 22, 2011, 04:13:01 pm
EDIT: I'm mostly atheist. I understand things by proof and theory.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 22, 2011, 04:21:12 pm
1. That we live in a blindly mechanistic universe.
2. That the human condition is about as significant as a small pebble in the sahara (when compared with everything everywhere in the entire universe).
3. That the universe operates by clearly distinguished laws that don't care what you think, their going to function the way they are going to function regardless.
4. That there may or may not be 'spiritual entities' in the universe but that if there are they function under the same rubric of mechanistic, predictable laws.
5. There is no single moral ethos that is always right.
6. What we consider 'right' and 'wrong' is largely irrelevant (again when compared against everything everywhere in the entire universe).
7. That we must, knowing full well what the consequences will be, make our own way and make our own decisions independent of any external guidance but that of others who've made the same choices.
8. That the universe may eventually become completely cold, dark, and dead.
9. That arguing over semantics is largely a way of taking apart someones idea without actually directly attacking the idea with your own idea.
10. That the same blind, uncaring, predictable, and mechanistic forces that rule the universe rule everything, everywhere in it, past present and future, care nothing for their subjective ownership, and are in general unaware of the existence of anything outside of themselves.
IA IA AZATHOTH!
No but seriously, does this make me a Nihilist, an Agnostic, a Atheist, or a Cosmicist?
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 04:24:40 pm
QuoteAgnostics are not atheists.QFT.
More like "QFA" (quoted for ambiguity). Some agnostics could be considered atheists and some atheists could be considered agnostics. "Atheism" does not imply that you believe no god exists, just that you don't believe in one. Agnostics, by definition, do not believe in god but are open to the possibility. There is overlap between the two terms, although they aren't synonymous.
What's the difference between "actively" disbelieving and "passively" doing so?
Maybe the distinction is intended to be more between believing that there is no god, and not believing that there is any god. Yes, there is a difference.
Of course, not believing in a god is more passive if the idea was never taught to you to begin with.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 22, 2011, 04:32:22 pm
I mean, I'm not against the world having higher meaning. I just don't see it, in any way, and in fact see some evidence directly opposing it, which is a shame.
Nonetheless, the universe is a freaking cool place even without all that stuff, full of far more wonders, mysteries and worth than I need to be happy.
Post by: Andir on January 22, 2011, 08:49:09 pm
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2011, 10:05:33 pm
Instead, we really need to first define "religion". Can't really argue about something if we don't know what we're arguing about.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 22, 2011, 10:15:20 pm
belief in mythical supernatural forces in general.
Post by: Willfor on January 22, 2011, 10:26:04 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 22, 2011, 10:27:32 pm
Post by: Willfor on January 22, 2011, 10:30:58 pm
Let's all shake hands, it looks like we've come to an agreement.
Post by: G-Flex on January 22, 2011, 10:43:26 pm
Neither do we need to define atheism as even the people who subscribe to it can't agree amongst themselves what the hell they believe. Or what words are associated to what concepts. Or any number of things that would actually make this anywhere near something worth debating instead of what seems like an endless drone of semantics.
Let's all shake hands, it looks like we've come to an agreement.
Wait, so the agreement is to fail to ever have a constructive conversation, because we can't even define the words involved? Wonderful.
Also: Atheists don't need to agree on what they believe, because atheism is not a statement of belief. It's not some monolithic group with a mission statement and a holy book. It's just a word that means you don't believe in any gods. It means you aren't theistic. It's not hard to grasp.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 22, 2011, 10:45:55 pm
The website is kind of a laugh though. "Difference between Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome" for one.
Post by: Willfor on January 22, 2011, 10:51:32 pm
I do not agree with this statement until it has been changed to "arguing on the internet without any common ground is like participating in the Special Olympics." Unless we have terms that we all can agree mean what everyone in the topic thinks they mean, then we run around in circles. Not being able to agree on even a definition means you might as well take your toys and go home.
Also, irreligion is not a statement of belief, whereas atheism is a statement of disbelief. Honestly, it's not that hard to grasp. :P
Oh damn, that shoe is totally on the other foot now.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 11:26:28 pm
Atheism can only be a religion when any god proves it's existence and that Atheist still disbelieves in that god...
Heh, if a deity shows itself and proves itself, Atheism wouldn't be a religion, it would be stupidity.
:o
Post by: Farmerbob on January 22, 2011, 11:54:09 pm
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions. No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical. On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.
I'm irrational about some things, everyone is to some degree. With this in mind, personally I don't mind people being irrational, as long as they don't try pushing it on me, and so long as they are not actively hurting other people.
Trying to call an Agnostic an Atheist is a lot like trying to call someone who makes maps a Flat Worlder.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 12:00:14 am
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions. No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical. On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?
Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 12:01:35 am
By the way, I don't have a green beard. Show me evidence of my beardedness, and I'll believe it.
edit: Wow, I was a bit slow to respond, hehe.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 12:03:30 am
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.
You don't understand what "atheism" means and haven't been following the conversation.
"Atheism" does not imply the belief that a deity does not exist. It implies the lack of belief in a deity. Yes, there are atheists who strictly believe that there is no God, or no gods, but that does not account for all of them and the label does not imply that.
Also: It is still certainly rational to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the validity or consistency of their proposed characteristics.
Also: What MetalSlimeHunt said. Burden of proof isn't on someone denying the claim. If someone makes a claim with absolutely no evidence behind it, the rational thing is to deny its truth. This is not the same as saying "I know for sure that it isn't true and can prove it".
Post by: Willfor on January 23, 2011, 12:08:17 am
With this in mind, personally I don't mind people being irrational, as long as they don't try pushing it on me, and so long as they are not actively hurting other people.I am curious if atheists think this is as much passive-aggressive bullshit when it's directed at them as when it's directed to anyone else. I've never seen it used towards atheists before, and this is my first chance to actually see if they can see what [some of them] do themselves reflected in this statement. Hopefully with the eye-opening realization of what it actually sounds like to the person they say it to, but I don't hold out much hope on that front.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 12:51:32 am
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions. No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical. On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?
Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.
The difference between your rats and something like one of the monotheistic deities as they are described is:
1) The deity has no need to interact with the world, and in fact has a logical reason to NOT interact directly with the world.
2) The deity is omnipotent and omniscient, able to perfectly hide itself from our existence.
3) A large number of people believe in the deity - it's not just random noise like foot-eating rats.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 23, 2011, 12:57:52 am
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions. No matter how silly it might seem to give any sort of credence towards the possible existence of such a deity, flatly denying it's existence is not logical. On the other side, believing in such a deity without proof of it's existence seems just as irrational.I deny that rabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feet. Am I being irrational? I can sense no rabid invisible ghost rats, nor is any effect claimed of the rat's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in the deadly, deadly ghost rats that could be skittering around you at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of the unspeakable ethreal vermin?
Now, go back and replace the rats with gods and their lust for your flesh with, say, hell. This is why atheism is not irrational.
The difference between your rats and something like one of the monotheistic deities as they are described is:
1) The rats have no need to interact with the world, and in fact have a logical reason to NOT interact directly with the world.
2) The rats are invisible, able to perfectly hide themselves from our existence.
3) A large number of people believe in many different things - it's just random noise like foot-eating rats.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 01:10:16 am
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 01:11:30 am
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 23, 2011, 01:16:46 am
what's your stance on xenu? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu)
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 01:18:21 am
No matter if you define Atheism as a religion or not, Atheism is an irrational belief structure because you simply cannot disprove the existence of an all knowing all powerful deity as defined by most monotheistic religions.
You don't understand what "atheism" means and haven't been following the conversation.
"Atheism" does not imply the belief that a deity does not exist. It implies the lack of belief in a deity. Yes, there are atheists who strictly believe that there is no God, or no gods, but that does not account for all of them and the label does not imply that.
Also: It is still certainly rational to disprove the existence of specific gods based on the validity or consistency of their proposed characteristics.
Also: What MetalSlimeHunt said. Burden of proof isn't on someone denying the claim. If someone makes a claim with absolutely no evidence behind it, the rational thing is to deny its truth. This is not the same as saying "I know for sure that it isn't true and can prove it".
And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists. We are NOT. An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 01:26:01 am
What Askot said. Jehova isn't any different when it comes to the burden of proof compared to any one of the other literally infinite and uncountable ideas you could come up with. It doesn't matter that a lot of people already believe in him, and an infinite/uncountable number of hypothetical beings or entities could be thought up which also don't interact with the world much.
And without any meaningful following they are background noise and either simply do not exist, or have no impact on the world, either in a direct or indirect manner, and aren't worth discussing.
Atheism is a rejection of Theism. Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.
Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.
If you want to discuss the relevance of Atheism, discuss it in a relevant way - in the context of real religions.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 01:26:58 am
And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists. We are NOT. An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.
Holy shit, you literally don't read, do you? I already responded to that claim.
Some atheists are agnostic, but not all. Some agnostics are also atheists.
I'm going to put this in big letters so that you don't miss it this time: Atheism does not imply that you believe there are no gods. Some have this belief, and others do not. Atheism only implies that you have no belief in a god or gods. A popular distinction here is between "weak atheism" (which has overlap with agnosticism) and "strong atheism" (which does not).
Atheism is a rejection of Theism. Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.
Without theism, everyone would be atheist, as atheist is defined as a lack of theism.
Quote
Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.
That isn't what I was doing.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 01:31:16 am
@farmerbob
what's your stance on xenu? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu)
Have never cared enough to even look at the theology of $cientology. I know a couple reformed $cientologists who have broken their brainwashing and actively oppose that group.
My understanding is that they don't believe in a deity per se, but rather some sort of alien race. I don't disbelieve or disbelieve in it because I don't know enough, but I'll have nothing to do with them because of how the organization treats people in general.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 01:33:25 am
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 01:34:46 am
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.
You are misunderstanding the idea of claim. It isn't atheists claiming that no deities exist, it's theists claiming that deities exist and atheists responding that there is absolutely no reason to believe this, and no, it isn't true. Atheists didn't step onto the stage first and declare the nonexistence of deities before the concept of deity was invented. Denying a positive statement isn't the same as making a positive statement of your own.
And that denial does not need proof because it is not the positive claim. The burden of proof is on the person who forwarded the concept of deity as valid, if no proof is provided the default position is one of non-existence.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 01:40:51 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 01:42:27 am
An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist. Why? Because theists have made a claim, many times, and always failed to deliver evidence supporting their claim. This has happened so very much, in the entire spectrum of deities proported to exist, that I find the chance of any of them existing when the claims of their existance have uniformly failed to be unlikely in the extreme.
Quote
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.Your problem is that the default postion of any individual is implicit atheism (not ever knowing of the idea of deities, as opposed to explicit atheism, which would be like me.). They can grow, live, and die without any contact with these ideas, and as such it is the default position. To sway someone from the default postion in a rational manner, you need evidence. When a theist confronts an implict atheist with their ideas, one of two things can happen:
A. The implicit atheist can believe them despite the lack of evidence, and has now made a consious choice on the subject, becoming a theist.
B. The implicit atheist can reject their claim, and now has made a consious choice on the subject, becoming an explict atheist.
Atheism is a rejection of Theism. Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.Everyone would be an implicit atheist, which is indeed a irreligious position.
Quote
Trying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.Sure it is. I was drawing a parallel to show you the meaninglessness of the "It has followers, and is therefore more important to the subject." claim.
Quote
If you want to discuss the relevance of Atheism, discuss it in a relevant way - in the context of real religions.Done.
I deny thatrabid invisible ghost rats are trying to eat my feetthe Abrahamic god is going to send me to Hell for disbelieving in it. Am I being irrational? I can sense norabid invisible ghost ratsgod, nor is any effect claimed of therat'sgod's actions observed. There's no reason to believe in thedeadly, deadly ghost ratshateful, self-rightious god that could beskittering around youjudging your soul at this very moment, so why would the burden of proof be on the person denying the existance of theunspeakable ethreal vermin?unspeakable ethreal god?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 01:56:32 am
And this brings us right back to Atheists trying to pretend that Agnostics are Atheists. We are NOT. An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and Atheists claim there is no deity - with no possible way to prove it.
Holy shit, you literally don't read, do you? I already responded to that claim.
Some atheists are agnostic, but not all. Some agnostics are also atheists.
I'm going to put this in big letters so that you don't miss it this time: Atheism does not imply that you believe there are no gods. Some have this belief, and others do not. Atheism only implies that you have no belief in a god or gods. A popular distinction here is between "weak atheism" (which has overlap with agnosticism) and "strong atheism" (which does not).Atheism is a rejection of Theism. Without Theism, Atheism would be meaningless - everyone would be irreligious rather than Atheist.
Without theism, everyone would be atheist, as atheist is defined as a lack of theism.QuoteTrying to define Atheism's relevance by using arguments based on stupid made up religions or things that nobody (or almost nobody) believes in is absurd.
That isn't what I was doing.
And we get back into definitions of words.
Atheism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Agnostics. I am an Agnostic. I am not Atheist.
I'll be simpler. Agnosticism is Agnosticism, not "Weak Atheism" Wiki is usually pretty good on history and the hard science, but anything close to religion, and it gets stupid at times.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:00:59 am
An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist.
<snip>
You don't even know what you are. If you do not believe there is a deity, you could be irreligious or Agnostic. If you know there is no deity without bothering with the burden of evidence, that would make you Atheist.
In this case, use a real dictionary, not Wiki.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:06:49 am
Wiki is usually pretty good on history and the hard science, but anything close to religion, and it gets stupid at times.
If that's the case, then tell me: How do you know Wikipedia is wrong on this subject of definitions, instead of you?An Agnostic requires proof before converting to either atheism or theism. An Atheist needs no proof, they simply "know" that a deity does not exist.I do not know that a deity does not exist, and I am an atheist. I lack the belief that deities exist, which is what makes one an atheist.
<snip>
You don't even know what you are. If you do not believe there is a deity, you could be irreligious or Agnostic. If you know there is no deity without bothering with the burden of evidence, that would make you Atheist.
In this case, use a real dictionary, not Wiki.
Post by: Bauglir on January 23, 2011, 02:07:01 am
Here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Bauglir/Diagram.png).
Now, with formal definitions out of the way, let's get down to the root of the issue. Agnostics have their own name, and so when referring to them we should probably refer to them as Agnostics, even though we all understand that they fall under the very broad heading of Atheist. Since it isn't actually logically possible, as far as I'm aware, for an implicit atheist to participate in this discussion without being an Agnostic, we don't need to worry about terms for them (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, when we say Atheist, unless we explicitly say otherwise, we're referring to Explicit Atheists, who have no other group name. Is this satisfactory?
EDIT: If not, explain where my error was and explicitly tell me what correction to make. By that I mean, "You don't have to be Atheist to be an Agnostic" isn't good enough, but telling me what the difference between the definition of an Atheist and an Agnostic is is fine. I'm not budging, however, on the definition of an Atheist as somebody with no belief in God; it's deliberately a broad category, and it's important to understand that being a member of it equates your views with, say those of Richard Dawkins, only very slightly more than does being bipedal.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:11:06 am
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 02:13:19 am
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 02:14:34 am
Wouldn't it be terrible for you though if you found out that there wasn't a god?
Would it be worse if you found out that there was one, but it was terrible and insane and hated its own creation?
But wouldn't it be even worse if you believed and found out that death breeds total obscurity in nothingness forever?
H.P. Lovecraft speaks prominently on atheism and was one himself.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:14:58 am
I have a single problem with that, in that explicit atheism is a lack of a belief in deities despite knowing of those who do have that belief, instead of a belief that no deities exist.
Well, then what about people who outright deny the existence of deities?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:15:37 am
BEHOLD! The set of definitions we're going to use now, ideally.
Here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Bauglir/Diagram.png). So, the reason I've laid it out like that is that it seems to me that Atheism, in the strictest sense, is a group whose members do not believe in deities. An explicit Atheist is a member who believes there is no deity. An implicit Atheist is one who has no belief one way or the other. An agnostic is one who explicitly believes that a valid belief one way or the other is impossible; in a sense, agnosticism is explicit implicit atheism.
Now, with formal definitions out of the way, let's get down to the root of the issue. Agnostics have their own name, and so when referring to them we should probably refer to them as Agnostics, even though we all understand that they fall under the very broad heading of Atheist. Since it isn't actually logically possible, as far as I'm aware, for an implicit atheist to participate in this discussion without being an Agnostic, we don't need to worry about terms for them (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, when we say Atheist, unless we explicitly say otherwise, we're referring to Explicit Atheists, who have no other group name. Is this satisfactory?
Bauglir you have just defined an impossibility. The diagram you linked includes Agnostics as Atheists which is patently false if you use a real definition, not Wiki.
From www.m-w.com - the official Merriam Webster online presence
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
There is absolutely zero overlap between these two states. None. Doesn't matter What Billybob put into Wiki yesterday.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:17:34 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:17:57 am
Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.I have a single problem with that, in that explicit atheism is a lack of a belief in deities despite knowing of those who do have that belief, instead of a belief that no deities exist.
Well, then what about people who outright deny the existence of deities?
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 02:18:50 am
Agnosticism appears to offer the hopeful possibility of their being a deity of some sort. Atheism does not.
I just said that exact thing, Farmerbob.
Are you emotionally invested in your standpoint or something? You seem (to me at least) to feel that this topic is personally offensive to you.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 02:19:27 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:20:09 am
Would you prefer if the general heading was changed to nontheists?
As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it. You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:22:54 am
As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.But they do have overlap, in both your definition and mine. In yours, Agnostics and Atheists are both also qualified as irreligious because they lack religious practices. In mine, the same is true with the addition that there exists an overlap between agnostics and atheists.
Post by: Bauglir on January 23, 2011, 02:23:38 am
Farmerbob, though, I'm sorry, but that's basically boiling down to what you want to be true, and doesn't reflect anything but a personal terminology preference. It doesn't change the logical structure, it just changes the words we have to apply. If it helps, that IS the shorthand I recommended, but it's not true in the technical sense I'm trying to lay out here. I don't particularly care about which sources we're using, I'm defining our terminology so we can actually get down to discussing what we actually want to talk about.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:24:22 am
Agnosticism appears to offer the hopeful possibility of their being a deity of some sort. Atheism does not.
I just said that exact thing, Farmerbob.
Are you emotionally invested in your standpoint or something? You seem (to me at least) to feel that this topic is personally offensive to you.
Of course I'm invested in not being associated with people who would believe something with no evidence. Whether that's the existence or non-existence of a deity is unimportant. No proof? No belief. Either way.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 02:25:04 am
When I say 'eternal nothingness' I mean a state of non-existence and non-awareness.
I do not mean 'hateful chambers of obscure decay which fill the gods themselves with horror' - Some ancient Greek whose name I can't remember. I think its Hesiod.
I do not mean an existence filled with echos and memories but nothing new ever.
At a cosmic scale I'm basically nihilist in the sense that I agree with much of lovecrafts serious and nonfictional philosophy, a body of writing that is distinct from his fictional works.
Do you agree or disagree with my statement regarding the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism, Farmerbob?
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:28:22 am
Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.
Too many distinctions. It seems to me the fundamental ones are between atheist (lack of belief) and agnostic (lack of knowledge), and within atheism strong (deities don't exist) and weak (I don't believe deities exist). Along with the strong/weak agnosticisms.
As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it. You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.
I really take issue with your concept of irreligious. Religion and theism are not synonymous. Someone can be theistic and irreligious just as someone can be nontheistic and religious. It's confusing to bring religion into an argument about theism.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 02:32:33 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:34:01 am
I don't think there are too many, as it serves our purpose.Weak Explicit Atheist vs. Strong Explict Atheist.Too many distinctions. It seems to me the fundamental ones are between atheist (lack of belief) and agnostic (lack of knowledge), and within atheism strong (deities don't exist) and weak (I don't believe deities exist). Along with the strong/weak agnosticisms.
Implicit: Does not know of theism.
Explicit: Does know of theism.
Weak: Does not hold the belief deites exist.
Strong: Believes that deites don't exist.
Atheist: Does not believe in deities.
And thus we can get:
Implicit Weak Atheist: "What's a "god"?"
Implicit Strong Atheist: DOES NOT EXIST
Explicit Weak Atheist: "I do not believe that gods exist."
Explicit Strong Atheist: "There's no such thing as gods."
Agnosticism comes in to play with the last two. If the individual is an agnostic, then you can add "-but we cannot ever know if they exist." If they are not, add "-and we can know that they don't exist.".
Post by: Bauglir on January 23, 2011, 02:37:42 am
I'm sticking with the seemingly more widely accepted definition (and the one suggested by its etymology, for that matter) of Atheism, so Agnosticism is technically a subgroup. In the same way that a pizza is technically a pie, or a Double Down is technically a sandwich (is it? I'd hate for my analogy to be incorrect). Any other problems that would require changing the structure of the diagram (not just which words appear where)?
EDIT: Incidentally, I'm going to sleep now, so I'll continue with this in the morning. It becomes Official Thread Rules once we've got no more substantial changes to make, and will be edited into the OP and ALSO the Arguments People Have Already Made post, just to make it clear. Speaking of that, if anybody wants to mention any, please do (and refer to the post in which it was made earlier, of course). We're getting long enough here that I think we've probably gone over a few things repeatedly. Please don't have a flamewar while I'm gone.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:41:58 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 23, 2011, 02:43:36 am
Post by: Bauglir on January 23, 2011, 02:44:35 am
I mean, distinctions are useful and all, but it's kind of cumbersome. Especially when almost everyone is going to be an explicit weak atheist, and if not, an explicit strong atheist. There are very few implicit atheists, and they don't stay that way once they join the debate. So I figure we might as well drop the distinction between whether or not they know of theism.
This is true. Right now, I think, we're establishing technical definitions so that people will not be nitpicking each other for the next thousand pages. Once that's done, we can say, "Okay, these 5 categories don't actually matter, so really we only need to worry about explicit strong atheists and agnostics".
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 02:45:52 am
If they don't I can't say much more than I already have, since I never really studied any atheist-specific philosophers besides F.W. N. and Some of the early 20th cent. existentialists.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 02:46:59 am
Would you prefer if the general heading was changed to nontheists?
As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it. You could group all of these three into the subgroup of non-Theists.
That's wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not what the words mean. If some subsets of "atheism" annoy you, who cares? That doesn't mean you aren't part of the subgroup that doesn't.
Also, the implication that "irreligious" can't overlap with "atheist" or "agnostic" is pretty astonishing. How can you never have agnostics/atheists who aren't religious? That doesn't make any damned sense.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:49:51 am
This is true. Right now, I think, we're establishing technical definitions so that people will not be nitpicking each other for the next thousand pages. Once that's done, we can say, "Okay, these 5 categories don't actually matter, so really we only need to worry about explicit strong atheists and agnostics".
Well, yeah, it's good to have your base definitions as clear as possible. So, then I guess we're all agreed on that.
That's wonderful. Unfortunately, that's not what the words mean. If some subsets of "atheism" annoy you, who cares? That doesn't mean you aren't part of the subgroup that doesn't.
Also, the implication that "irreligious" can't overlap with "atheist" or "agnostic" is pretty astonishing. How can you never have agnostics/atheists who aren't religious? That doesn't make any damned sense.
He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 02:51:22 am
He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.
Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 02:53:05 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:55:48 am
As long as irreligious, Agnostic, and Atheist groups had zero overlap, I'd be happy with it.But they do have overlap, in both your definition and mine. In yours, Agnostics and Atheists are both also qualified as irreligious because they lack religious practices. In mine, the same is true with the addition that there exists an overlap between agnostics and atheists.
Irreligious people simply don't know or care about religion
Agnostics care - prove it to us one way or the other and we'll believe, but we won't believe without proof
Atheists care - they disbelieve
Using real definitions, not Wiki weirdness, irreligious people, Agnostics, and Atheists have zero overlap.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 02:58:23 am
I'd be doing it because their bastards who have screwed up my whole situation badly and because I want to be rid of them.
You'd be doing it because their heretics.
This is the conclusion your responses lead me to.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 02:59:21 am
He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.
Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.
From a real source, not Wiki.
Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion
Please stop referring to Wiki definitions of religious terms like as if they have any meaning.
**Edit**
The real source is www.m-w.com - the Merriam-Webster dictionary online.
Additionally, to help clarify, here is more data from that entry:
Synonyms: godless, nonreligious, religionless
Antonyms: religious
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 03:02:18 am
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 03:03:00 am
No, not sorry.
I'm guessing the answer to my question regarding whether or not nihilism and existentialism have any bearing in this threads intended direction is either negative or simply being ignored.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 03:04:45 am
He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.
Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.
From a real source, not Wiki.
Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion
Please stop referring to Wiki definitions of religious terms like as if they have any meaning.
**Edit**
The real source is www.m-w.com - the Merriam-Webster dictionary online.
Additionally, to help clarify, here is more data from that entry:
Synonyms: godless, nonreligious, religionless
Antonyms: religious
Accusing people of getting their information from Wikipedia is not a good debate practice.
What that definition says is that the person is not religious. It does not indicate their theological positions whatsoever. One can be an atheistic Christian, go to church, follow Jesus' teachings, and believe that he was a mortal man and was not divinely born or inspired. That would make that person a religious atheist.
One can also be a irreligious theist. Deists are a perfect example of this. They believe in a deity but in no way worship or follow him. They simply think he exists.
Religiousness says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 03:07:45 am
He's using a different definition of irreligious. One roughly equivalent to theological noncognitivist, ignostic, or apatheist.
Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions for words whenever we please just because we have hang-ups about some connotations they have, or associations we have with them.
From a real source, not Wiki.
Definition of IRRELIGIOUS
1: neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices <so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes — G. B. Shaw>
2: indicating lack of religion
Please stop referring to Wiki definitions of religious terms like as if they have any meaning.
Dude, I've taken religious philosophy courses. Wikipedia isn't just making this shit up; it's used in actual academic philosophy and religious studies. It's also rather poor methodology to be using a dictionary of common English when talking about technical terms.
Quote
The real source is www.m-w.com - the Merriam-Webster dictionary online.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary is not authoritative. No dictionary of the English language is. They are especially non-authoritative as they generally describe common language, not technical terms.
Also, if you would actually have read any of the Wikipedia article, you'd have noticed that several sources are given with arguments for various definitions.
Oh, by the way, synonyms are not perfect. If a dictionary or thesaurus lists two words as synonyms, that is not intended to imply that they have the exact same definitions or are otherwise used exactly the same; it only means that they are similar in meaning.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 03:20:28 am
From a real source, not Wiki.
You make wiki jesus cry.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 03:22:24 am
(http://i52.tinypic.com/15zkqa1.jpg)
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 03:25:20 am
Yea, I'm still Agnostic. I think it would be unscientific to assume god was inpossible.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 03:26:11 am
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 03:30:36 am
This would be an accurate grouping chart for non theists.
Irreligious does not imply nontheistic. Why do you think it does?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 03:32:45 am
Actually, that doesn't include anything besides three strawmen and a Vague grouping that a very large amount of people would fall into.
And that is exactly the way it should be. If you want to add in your little bubbles for this, that, and the other, provided that no lines cross into Agnosticism from Atheism, I'm fine with it. Don't confuse kneejerk naysayers with people who want to think rationally.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 03:34:19 am
Actually, that doesn't include anything besides three strawmen and a Vague grouping that a very large amount of people would fall into.Do you even know what a freeking strawman is? It is when, in a dabate, you purpusfuly misinturprate your opposents argument and attack thus invalid argument, rather that the valid argument they made. Like attacking a strawman rather then the real guy.
How the hell is this a strawman situation?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 03:41:15 am
This would be an accurate grouping chart for non theists.
Irreligious does not imply nontheistic. Why do you think it does?
Irreligious by definition is a lack of religion. You can go to church if you are irreligious, or even Agnostic or Atheist. Lots of people do.
If you can somehow manage to believe in a deity and not be religious, you would be a heretic, I think, which certainly does not fall into any possible definition of non theist.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 03:48:45 am
Conversely religious belief does not imply theistic belief. Firstly, you claim atheism is a religion, and therefore all atheists are religious nontheists. Secondly naturalistic pantheism can inspire religious devotion and reverence without any actual belief in a deity. Religion and theism are correlated, but no so strongly that being irreligious is a theistic position.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 03:49:58 am
Irreligious by definition is a lack of religion. You can go to church if you are irreligious, or even Agnostic or Atheist. Lots of people do.
If you can somehow manage to believe in a deity and not be religious, you would be a heretic, I think, which certainly does not fall into any possible definition of non theist.
Isn't a heretic somebody who is a criminal in the eyes of a church? So all muslims are heritics if you ask christians, and all christans are hericitcs (Infadels if you want local dialect) in the eyes of muslims?
I mean that is just my 'off the top of my head' understanding of the word, so feel free to correct.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 03:53:48 am
An infidel is similar.
Both concepts have a root in the concept of 'miscreant'.
Original terminology: 'mes creant'.
Trans. lit from old french, 'wrong beliefs' with a secondary meaning of 'traveling the wrong path'.
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 03:55:26 am
Lack of religion, not a lack of belief in deities. Belief in a deity does not imply religion. Religion implies worship and devotion. If you believe in a deity, but don't worship, go to church, follow the rules, or generally devote yourself to that deity you are not religious, therefore irreligious but not nontheistic. You neglect the religion, not the deity.
This is a little debatable. That is to say, it's debatable whether "religion" means what you say, or whether or not you simply have "religious beliefs", and whether or not "religious beliefs" include theistic beliefs by default.
I have no idea why Farmerbob is even bringing the term "heretic" into the equation. Then again, I don't know why he's doing a lot of the things he's doing. Judging by what he's said, and by his chart, he subscribes to his own definitions that are 1) not actually in line with any accepted academic definitions of the words, and 2) far less useful, as they actually make it harder to explain one's position. I'm not even going to try to interpret what his definition of "Non Theists" means on that chart, as it is completely nonsensical.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 03:56:04 am
Irreligious by definition is a lack of religion. You can go to church if you are irreligious, or even Agnostic or Atheist. Lots of people do.
If you can somehow manage to believe in a deity and not be religious, you would be a heretic, I think, which certainly does not fall into any possible definition of non theist.
Isn't a heretic somebody who is a criminal in the eyes of a church? So all muslims are heritics if you ask christians, and all christans are hericitcs (Infadels if you want local dialect) in the eyes of muslims?
I mean that is just my 'off the top of my head' understanding of the word, so feel free to correct.
I was trying to remember if I had ever heard a word to describe someone that believed in a deity but did not worship it. Other than Heretic, the best thing I could come up with was idiot.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 23, 2011, 03:56:42 am
A heretic believes something other than what the official belief of the church they belong to nominally states.Religion does not equal church. One does not have to follow a church (or any religious organization) to follow a religion.
An infidel is similar.
Both concepts have a root in the concept of 'miscreant'.
Original terminology: 'mes creant'.
Trans. lit from old french, 'wrong beliefs' with a secondary meaning of 'traveling the wrong path'.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 23, 2011, 03:58:26 am
I long ago gave up on trying to figure out what in the hell he's trying to communicate and have reached a point at which I don't honestly care.
I say forward with the debate rather than spending any more time trying to clarify for someone who has a preconception regarding the meaning of the terms under discussion.
To crown of fire.
I was simply elucidating regarding what heretic and infidel actually meant.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 04:03:54 am
This is a little debatable. That is to say, it's debatable whether "religion" means what you say, or whether or not you simply have "religious beliefs", and whether or not "religious beliefs" include theistic beliefs by default.
It's debatable, but there are religions that are considered nontheistic (Buddhism mainly) and theistic beliefs that are considered nonreligious (Deism mainly). Personally I'd say that religious beliefs generally include theistic ones, but not the other way around.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 04:04:22 am
Lack of religion, not a lack of belief in deities. Belief in a deity does not imply religion. Religion implies worship and devotion. If you believe in a deity, but don't worship, go to church, follow the rules, or generally devote yourself to that deity you are not religious, therefore irreligious but not nontheistic. You neglect the religion, not the deity.
This is a little debatable. That is to say, it's debatable whether "religion" means what you say, or whether or not you simply have "religious beliefs", and whether or not "religious beliefs" include theistic beliefs by default.
I have no idea why Farmerbob is even bringing the term "heretic" into the equation. Then again, I don't know why he's doing a lot of the things he's doing. Judging by what he's said, and by his chart, he subscribes to his own definitions that are 1) not actually in line with any accepted academic definitions of the words, and 2) far less useful, as they actually make it harder to explain one's position. I'm not even going to try to interpret what his definition of "Non Theists" means on that chart, as it is completely nonsensical.
I understand that lots of people are in love with Wiki, but when it comes to information about religion, Wiki is about as accurate as a Google search with "I feel lucky" chosen.
There are lots of crackpot theorists out there on any number of different religious topics that you might want to name, and all of them want to create their own words and definitions to make things fit their own worldview.
Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 04:09:45 am
To G-flex.
I long ago gave up on trying to figure out what in the hell he's trying to communicate and have reached a point at which I don't honestly care.
I say forward with the debate rather than spending any more time trying to clarify for someone who has a preconception regarding the meaning of the terms under discussion.
To crown of fire.
I was simply elucidating regarding what heretic and infidel actually meant.
At this point, I'm trying to communicate that Agnosticism shares one thing and one thing only with Atheism. Both groups are non-theists. Other than that there is nothing meaningful in common between Agnosticism and Atheism. One is based on a logical requirement for proof, the other is based on a belief held with no justification.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 04:11:17 am
Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.
Except that by using irreligious as a theistic position you are straying from the dictionary definition which says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs. Whether you think irreligious theists are idiotic or not they exist and your definition basically negates them.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 04:16:52 am
I was trying to remember if I had ever heard a word to describe someone that believed in a deity but did not worship it. Other than Heretic, the best thing I could come up with was idiot.
I think the problem is that your not thinking past Christan. If the patheon of a religen has many gods, then it is easyer to identify some as being 'evil' and therefor choose to shun them, and not worship them. Nobody cares for poor Loki, god of awesomeness.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 04:39:03 am
The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 04:59:02 am
Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.
Except that by using irreligious as a theistic position you are straying from the dictionary definition which says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs. Whether you think irreligious theists are idiotic or not they exist and your definition basically negates them.
I suppose one would have to split the definition of irreligious then. There is the irreligion that indicates complete lack of religion, and the irreligion that indicates a lack of doctrine and proper practices.
I prefer the definition that matches the root meanings of the component parts, however I'll recognize that the other side exists.
The problem is that these two definitions between them encompass every single person in the entire world. Nobody follows each and every single doctrinal requirement of their religion perfectly, and anyone who isn't religious is also irreligious.
I'm not using irreligious to describe theists, because in that context, it's meaningless. To be a theist, you are also invariably irreligious at least part of the time. To follow up, because it is possible to be irreligious and a theist, and irreligious and completely without interest in religion, it's best to separate the terms.
I would call an irreligious theist a sinner, and leave the term irreligious to indicate the meaning of it's root words.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 05:06:02 am
The strawman I was refering to was mainly the three positions being "Disbelief in gods, with no proof", "don't care at all", and "No decision without proof".
The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.
Ok, so that just about justifys athiest. One out of three aint bad.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 05:07:03 am
I was trying to remember if I had ever heard a word to describe someone that believed in a deity but did not worship it. Other than Heretic, the best thing I could come up with was idiot.
I think the problem is that your not thinking past Christan. If the patheon of a religen has many gods, then it is easyer to identify some as being 'evil' and therefor choose to shun them, and not worship them. Nobody cares for poor Loki, god of awesomeness.
Loki was certainly worshipped by those that believed in him, even if they didn't generally want a whole lot of his attention. Pantheistic societies tended to pray to whatever gods were appropriate at the moment. A badly injured man trying to stay hidden from a searching enemy might pray to Loki to help him stay hidden, a wife might pray to him to not let her husband find out about the other man. A thief might pray to Loki quite regularly. Basically anyone who would see benefits from deception would likely offer up a prayer to Loki. They might not care for him, and they would know that his gift frequently was not really a gift in the end, but they would prat to him just the same.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 05:09:13 am
Loki was certainly worshipped by those that believed in him, even if they didn't generally want a whole lot of his attention. Pantheistic societies tended to pray to whatever gods were appropriate at the moment. A badly injured man trying to stay hidden from a searching enemy might pray to Loki to help him stay hidden, a wife might pray to him to not let her husband find out about the other man. A thief might pray to Loki quite regularly. Basically anyone who would be benefitted by deception would likely offer up a prayer to Loki. They might not care for him, and they would know that his gift frequently was not really a gift in the end, but they would prat to him just the same.
Sorry to be misleading (Pun fully intended), I didn't realy make referance to loki because nobody cared, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find somebody who worships any god, although not everybody will worship them all.
Loki was my twisted idea of a joke, nobody ever gets my sence of humer.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 05:14:29 am
As for Agnostic "nothing without proof", it's not really a strawman as such, but it is a over simplification of a position that covers such beliefs as "maybe god is hiding or fudging any proof for or against, so we can't know", "any being like a god is beyond knowing", "need more proof" and "uh... dunno".
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 05:18:00 am
The strawman I was refering to was mainly the three positions being "Disbelief in gods, with no proof", "don't care at all", and "No decision without proof".
The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.
Richard Dawkins is requiring proof of the existence of a deity before even considering the concept.
If were rational, he would refuse to draw a conclusion either way because there is no way to know. You might lean one way or another, but still be uncommitted, awaiting further data.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 05:19:48 am
So for example, we could say 'god feeds and clothes the poor'. That dosn't mean that is a amazing display of super natural weather patterns fish and stocks fall from the sky, it means that those follow god are compelled to start charitys and donate clothing and spam to those in need. On the other hand, god could 'smite he's rivals from above' and we get guys riding planes into towers.
It's a cheesy way to see god, but it is hard to deny that, real or not, as a factor that affects human behavior, for better or worse, it it worth acknowledging.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 05:23:44 am
Well, the whole "doesn't care" irreligious thing also forgets to cover some of the stranger people who don't consider gods per se, like animist religions and some forms of spirituality.
As for Agnostic "nothing without proof", it's not really a strawman as such, but it is a over simplification of a position that covers such beliefs as "maybe god is hiding or fudging any proof for or against, so we can't know", "any being like a god is beyond knowing", "need more proof" and "uh... dunno".
Well, yes, but is asking if "4 + 4 = 8" really different from asking if "2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8"? I submit that it is not.
Agnosticism is basically a position that holds together logically, the others don't - at least for now.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 05:40:58 am
Of corse there is one interpritation of 'god' that is basicaly undenyable. That is, god is the collective will of it's followers.
So for example, we could say 'god feeds and clothes the poor'. That dosn't mean that is a amazing display of super natural weather patterns fish and stocks fall from the sky, it means that those follow god are compelled to start charitys and donate clothing and spam to those in need. On the other hand, god could 'smite he's rivals from above' and we get guys riding planes into towers.
It's a cheesy way to see god, but it is hard to deny that, real or not, as a factor that affects human behavior, for better or worse, it it worth acknowledging.
There's no doubt some people are willing to do extremely good and unspeakably bad things in the name of their religion.
Post by: Siquo on January 23, 2011, 06:00:18 am
Within this new framework of atheism definitions, I'd like to restate that any atheist (and this falls outside of implicit/explicit/weak/strong) that adheres to Scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), is religious. If you believe that scientific experiments reveal the truth of the universe, aren't those experiments in themselves a form of religious ritual? (If you've ever done some hard scientific experiments over the course of months or years, you'd know what I mean. Tedious and repetitive.) Also, scientists (Grand Generalisation and Stereotyping Alert) are like monks: often seclusive, dedicated to their religion, and celibate ;)
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 06:04:02 am
I suppose one would have to split the definition of irreligious then. There is the irreligion that indicates complete lack of religion, and the irreligion that indicates a lack of doctrine and proper practices.
I prefer the definition that matches the root meanings of the component parts, however I'll recognize that the other side exists.
The problem is that these two definitions between them encompass every single person in the entire world. Nobody follows each and every single doctrinal requirement of their religion perfectly, and anyone who isn't religious is also irreligious.
I'm not using irreligious to describe theists, because in that context, it's meaningless. To be a theist, you are also invariably irreligious at least part of the time. To follow up, because it is possible to be irreligious and a theist, and irreligious and completely without interest in religion, it's best to separate the terms.
I would call an irreligious theist a sinner, and leave the term irreligious to indicate the meaning of it's root words.
From roots it literally means "not religious." And in the five centuries its been around it has mostly been used to describe those who didn't express proper piety. That is, yes, it mostly has meant sinners.
And an irreligious christian would yes, be a sinner. But christianity is a religion. Irreligious people don't usually believe in a god like that. Deism, again, is the archetypal example of this. They believe in a creator deity, but also that it is apparently unconcerned with us.
The position you're describing, as it relates to theistic belief, is most specifically "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists."
Which could be considered a type of agnosticism.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 07:13:21 am
Nevertheless, there are some who place a stamp of "It's Science!" on their religion. Usually self-help gurus and such talking about Quantum Physics and focusing your inner String harmonics to increase your inner potential... or whatever.
Post by: TolyK on January 23, 2011, 07:15:32 am
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 07:16:08 am
Because short of that, we need other means to say why we shouldn't stone little kids to death. Local culture does alright, and the police do well, but nothing strikes fear into peoples hearts like burning forever...
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 07:21:13 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 07:21:24 am
Farmerbob, can't we just listen to Bauglir (the moderator of this thread, FYI), and take his definitions, so we can argue from there? You've been doing nothing but defending your interpretations of certain sequences of letters for the last few pages. It's kinda pointless.
Within this new framework of atheism definitions, I'd like to restate that any atheist (and this falls outside of implicit/explicit/weak/strong) that adheres to Scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), is religious. If you believe that scientific experiments reveal the truth of the universe, aren't those experiments in themselves a form of religious ritual? (If you've ever done some hard scientific experiments over the course of months or years, you'd know what I mean. Tedious and repetitive.) Also, scientists (Grand Generalisation and Stereotyping Alert) are like monks: often seclusive, dedicated to their religion, and celibate ;)
I'm hoping that Bauglir as the "owner" of this thread will recognize that there is absolutely no way that one can possibly justify defining a belief based on a rational decisionmaking process (Agnosticism) as a subgrouping of another belief that is fully dependent on an unprovable concept (Atheism). If that were the case, then Agnosticism would have to share the illogic of Atheism, and it simply does not. The only thing that Agnosticism and Atheism share in common is a refusal to believe in a deity. The path to that refusal is extremely important.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 23, 2011, 07:34:50 am
I suppose one would have to split the definition of irreligious then. There is the irreligion that indicates complete lack of religion, and the irreligion that indicates a lack of doctrine and proper practices.
I prefer the definition that matches the root meanings of the component parts, however I'll recognize that the other side exists.
The problem is that these two definitions between them encompass every single person in the entire world. Nobody follows each and every single doctrinal requirement of their religion perfectly, and anyone who isn't religious is also irreligious.
I'm not using irreligious to describe theists, because in that context, it's meaningless. To be a theist, you are also invariably irreligious at least part of the time. To follow up, because it is possible to be irreligious and a theist, and irreligious and completely without interest in religion, it's best to separate the terms.
I would call an irreligious theist a sinner, and leave the term irreligious to indicate the meaning of it's root words.
From roots it literally means "not religious." And in the five centuries its been around it has mostly been used to describe those who didn't express proper piety. That is, yes, it mostly has meant sinners.
And an irreligious christian would yes, be a sinner. But christianity is a religion. Irreligious people don't usually believe in a god like that. Deism, again, is the archetypal example of this. They believe in a creator deity, but also that it is apparently unconcerned with us.
The position you're describing, as it relates to theistic belief, is most specifically "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists."
Which could be considered a type of agnosticism.
An irreligious person who is "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists." has no interest in the matter, and would not consider whether or not a deity exists because they don't care.
An Agnostic has interest, how else would they have actually seriously considered the matter of whether a deity exists?
It's not just a matter of not being a theist. These two groups do share that with Atheism, but that's as far as the similarities run.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 07:42:14 am
Honestly, I can respect if you do or do not have a specific faith. I know I have my strange ways to show it, but all in all I like people who beleive in a god a lot. But disreguard for something people say is the most pwerful force in all existance, especialy if they do not care enough to know about it? That's like not caring wether electricity can kill you or not. Sure, one it more provable then the other, but for somebody who has given the subject no thought at all, they don't know that, and they realy should do there best to find out for themselves.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 23, 2011, 07:45:43 am
I think the only word for somebody who dosn't think about a all powerful being that so many people worship and will sometimes fight and kill over would be fool.Finding out if electricity can kill you or not by yourself is not going to turn out well, no matter how you look at it.
Honestly, I can respect if you do or do not have a specific faith. I know I have my strange ways to show it, but all in all I like people who beleive in a god a lot. But disreguard for something people say is the most pwerful force in all existance, especialy if they do not care enough to know about it? That's like not caring wether electricity can kill you or not. Sure, one it more provable then the other, but for somebody who has given the subject no thought at all, they don't know that, and they realy should do there best to find out for themselves.
Religion never killed anybody, electricity has :P
Post by: CoughDrop on January 23, 2011, 07:46:00 am
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 07:48:56 am
Religion never killed anybody, electricity has :P
Well there are other ways to find out that high voltage kills. Well not realy, high amps kill, you can et hit by a ton of voltage and be fine if there are no amps behind it, but you get the idea. But yes, the past has given examples of people being stuck by lightning and not living.
Oh, and the crucades is the common example, although AIDS is becoming popular too! If you want more direct, then aztecs were into that.
In other words I totaly just killed your joke by not taking it as a joke.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 23, 2011, 07:51:25 am
Ideas and beliefs don't kill people, people kill people, if you want it serious then.Religion never killed anybody, electricity has :P
Well there are other ways to find out that high voltage kills. Well not realy, high amps kill, you can et hit by a ton of voltage and be fine if there are no amps behind it, but you get the idea. But yes, the past has given examples of people being stuck by lightning and not living.
Oh, and the crucades is the common example, although AIDS is becoming popular too! If you want more direct, then aztecs were into that.
In other words I totaly just killed your joke by not taking it as a joke.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 07:54:01 am
Ideas and beliefs don't kill people, people kill people, if you want it serious then.Unless the idea or belief is so abstract that it sends you insane and makes you keep up a strange website like 'hypercube' or 'eht namuh' untill you go so fruit lops that you kill your neighbor by beating them into submission with a cactus.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 23, 2011, 08:32:32 am
Ideas and beliefs don't kill people, people kill people, if you want it serious then.Oh, yes. Totally. Only some ideas make people kill people.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 08:35:57 am
Oh, yes. Totally. Only some ideas make people kill people.
Eddie: My god.
Ivan: What is it, Ed?
Eddie: I just thought, what if we were to somehow thicken milk out into a substance we can spread on bread?
Ivan: What? I don't follow.
Eddie: I shall call it butter! People will love it!
Ivan: Your just being silly.
Eddie:...
*Eddie stabs Ivan*
Eddie: Must protect the secret of the butter.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 23, 2011, 08:57:36 am
However, some ideas do so with much higher success rate.
To kill for butter, you must be deranged. To kill for eternal bliss in heaven+72 virgins gratis, you just need to believe in one of the more popular religions on the market really hard.
The first state of mind leads to the society isolating you and perhaps treating. Doing the same with the second one is for some reason unthinkable.
Certainly, I don't mean that every religion is this conductive to violence(if only every Christian, Jew, and Muslim converted into Jainism one day, we wouldn't even have had* this conversation).
*possibly bad grammar warning.
Post by: fqllve on January 23, 2011, 09:21:10 am
An irreligious person who is "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists." has no interest in the matter, and would not consider whether or not a deity exists because they don't care.
An Agnostic has interest, how else would they have actually seriously considered the matter of whether a deity exists?
Some agnostics don't believe we can know whether or not a deity exists. Someone who believed that would have no more interest in the question than someone who thought the question was meaningless in the first place.
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 09:31:29 am
To kill for butter, you must be deranged.
Realy?
Because I didn't just base that example off my own life and change the names. That would be silly.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2011, 09:58:33 am
To kill for butter, you must be deranged. To kill for eternal bliss in heaven+72 virgins gratis, you just need to believe in one of the more popular religions on the market really hard.It's not part of actual Muslim teaching. It was just a mistranslation of something a radical cleric said (apparently it was meant to be "72 raisins of crystal clarity").
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 23, 2011, 10:06:52 am
I'm with Sam Harris on this one - Islam is conductive to this kind of interpretation, while some other religions are not. You can easily get a radical Muslim, who'd preach that blowing yourself up and killing heathens in the process is a sure way to paradise, but you'd never get a radical Jainist doing the same.To kill for butter, you must be deranged. To kill for eternal bliss in heaven+72 virgins gratis, you just need to believe in one of the more popular religions on the market really hard.It's not part of actual Muslim teaching. It was just a mistranslation of something a radical cleric said (apparently it was meant to be "72 raisins of crystal clarity").
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values
http://fora.tv/2005/12/09/View_From_End_Of_World
Post by: Andir on January 23, 2011, 11:48:55 am
People today are so eager to label others.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 23, 2011, 12:09:24 pm
as for irreligious, it is not only absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the existence or not of god, but it is an even more extreme case of organic definition, and the dictionary definition bob quoted doesn't even support his own definition.
Post by: Willfor on January 23, 2011, 12:26:03 pm
Well, buck up. Everyone else in the world is either grouped in with other people who are irrational, or are the people who others don't want to be associated with. EVERYONE. If you are drawing breath, you are associated with someone you would rather not be associated with. If you cut yourself off completely from society, you are also grouped in with people you don't want to be associated with. The only escape from this is death, where you will further be grouped in with everyone afterward. This starts before you are born as well thanks to both prolife and prochoice groups.
Welcome to humanity. You are either with us, or you are with us against your will. :)
Post by: Bauglir on January 23, 2011, 03:08:22 pm
Post by: G-Flex on January 23, 2011, 04:43:49 pm
I'm hoping that Bauglir as the "owner" of this thread will recognize that there is absolutely no way that one can possibly justify defining a belief based on a rational decisionmaking process (Agnosticism) as a subgrouping of another belief that is fully dependent on an unprovable concept (Atheism). If that were the case, then Agnosticism would have to share the illogic of Atheism, and it simply does not. The only thing that Agnosticism and Atheism share in common is a refusal to believe in a deity. The path to that refusal is extremely important.
You do not know what these words mean, and continue to use definitions pulled out of your own ass. The sooner you stop doing this, the sooner people can actually start talking about things.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2011, 04:45:22 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 04:52:37 pm
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 08:41:47 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 23, 2011, 09:01:44 pm
Post by: Max White on January 23, 2011, 09:04:15 pm
Oh wow, so in the end, Captain crunsh is the one true god? Who would have thought... Well that's over and done with, tell the christians and muslims and what not that it's over, we can all worship the crunsh now.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 23, 2011, 09:06:28 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 12:21:23 am
And so, after countless lives were lost to pointless needle work, we finaly managed to define athiest. I think we achived something here today.Now we can start discussing the thread's topic.
Post by: Max White on January 24, 2011, 12:25:22 am
*Ba dum, tish!*
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 12:26:27 am
Given the majority opinion on what Atheism means and the fact that an encyclopedia (even in wiki form) is a more authoritative source than a dictionary for any subject that has nuance because dictionary editors don't have to consider the philosophical impilcations of every word defined, I'm going to have to overrule Farmerbob here. For the purposes of this thread, an Atheist is defined as somebody without a belief in a deity. Editing chart into OP now. The issue is now closed.
Please delete every single entry of mine in this thread. If you are going to be using definitions of Agnostic and Atheism that are meaningless, then it's meaningless for my posts to remain.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 24, 2011, 12:26:56 am
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 12:42:29 am
And yet none of those definitions fit me. I doupt any form of deity exists, but I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about it. This is becouse while yes it is true there is absolutely no evidence of a deity, there is no true evidence saying one, or more, doesn't exist.
Isn't that Agnostic, or perhaps Explicit Weak Atheist?
Post by: Max White on January 24, 2011, 12:46:53 am
Please delete every single entry of mine in this thread. If you are going to be using definitions of Agnostic and Atheism that are meaningless, then it's meaningless for my posts to remain.
Farmer bob never did play well with the other children in the play ground.
And yet none of those definitions fit me. I doupt any form of deity exists, but I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about it. This is becouse while yes it is true there is absolutely no evidence of a deity, there is no true evidence saying one, or more, doesn't exist.
Welcome to club agnostic, where the drinks are indecisive.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 24, 2011, 12:49:41 am
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 12:50:03 am
And yet none of those definitions fit me. I doupt any form of deity exists, but I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about it. This is becouse while yes it is true there is absolutely no evidence of a deity, there is no true evidence saying one, or more, doesn't exist.
Isn't that Agnostic, or perhaps Explicit Weak Atheist?
Yep. It's definitely the latter, and almost certainly the former.
Please delete every single entry of mine in this thread. If you are going to be using definitions of Agnostic and Atheism that are meaningless, then it's meaningless for my posts to remain.
They aren't meaningless. They're just not the ones you made up yourself, and I somehow doubt that the ones you pulled out of thin air and your own prejudices are any better than the ones developed over centuries by the philosophical/theological community at large.
It's meaningful for your posts to remain because it's counterproductive to discussion to toss everything you've said into the Memory Hole just because you turned out to embarrass yourself a bit. People need to learn from discussion, from mistakes, and from the correction of misinformation, including you.
Post by: optimumtact on January 24, 2011, 12:56:08 am
Lets assume there is a god who is fully in control of our universe in a similar way to the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.
How then do we justify the day to day happenings of earth?
I.E. how is is possible for him to stand aside and let us kill/rape/torture/pillage.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 01:01:09 am
And yet none of those definitions fit me. I doupt any form of deity exists, but I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about it. This is becouse while yes it is true there is absolutely no evidence of a deity, there is no true evidence saying one, or more, doesn't exist.
Isn't that Agnostic, or perhaps Explicit Weak Atheist?
Yep. It's definitely the latter, and almost certainly the former.Please delete every single entry of mine in this thread. If you are going to be using definitions of Agnostic and Atheism that are meaningless, then it's meaningless for my posts to remain.
They aren't meaningless. They're just not the ones you made up yourself, and I somehow doubt that the ones you pulled out of thin air and your own prejudices are any better than the ones developed over centuries by the philosophical/theological community at large.
It's meaningful for your posts to remain because it's counterproductive to discussion to toss everything you've said into the Memory Hole just because you turned out to embarrass yourself a bit. People need to learn from discussion, from mistakes, and from the correction of misinformation, including you.
Stop being a completely ignorant schmuck.
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve. You can make any number of subgroupings and imaginary whatnots that you care to, but Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common. Trying to pretend that they do is ignorant.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 01:02:32 am
Here's a mental exercise
Lets assume there is a god who is fully in control of our universe in a similar way to the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.
How then do we justify the day to day happenings of earth?
I.E. how is is possible for him to stand aside and let us kill/rape/torture/pillage.
That is the faint evidence I spoke of earlier. There are pointlessly cruel and nasty things which happen, which simply wouldn't happen if such a being ruled over the universe and was perfect and omnipotent.
Some put forward the idea that it is all for a higher purpose, or perhaps to teach the rest of us important lessons. I personally think a perfect being would be capable of teaching us just find without any torture happening.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 01:03:40 am
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.
These aren't actually the definitions you provided.
Quote
Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.
Then you don't know what the words mean, and apparently refuse to see what they mean even after it's been explained to you about a half-dozen times. I suggest you stop trying to argue the point. It's a dead horse, and its legs were broken to begin with.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 01:25:53 am
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.
These aren't actually the definitions you provided.QuoteAtheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.
Then you don't know what the words mean, and apparently refuse to see what they mean even after it's been explained to you about a half-dozen times. I suggest you stop trying to argue the point. It's a dead horse, and its legs were broken to begin with.
Let's see, we aren't allowed to use dictionary definitions because we need to use foofoo from Doctor Fantastic's big guide to religion.
So let's go to the basic roots of the words, which I absolutely defy you to refute.
Almost everyone here understands what a prefix is, I hope, so I won't go into it in terrible detail:
Gnosis (the greek root not the religion) refers to knowledge. Agnostic refers to a lack of knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a deity, Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a deity.
These two terms are NOT interchangeable in any way, shape, or form.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 24, 2011, 01:27:57 am
Here's a mental exerciseNot every god has to be good :P
Lets assume there is a god who is fully in control of our universe in a similar way to the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.
How then do we justify the day to day happenings of earth?
I.E. how is is possible for him to stand aside and let us kill/rape/torture/pillage.
Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve. Atheists don't believe. There is overlap there.Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.
These aren't actually the definitions you provided.QuoteAtheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.
Then you don't know what the words mean, and apparently refuse to see what they mean even after it's been explained to you about a half-dozen times. I suggest you stop trying to argue the point. It's a dead horse, and its legs were broken to begin with.
Let's see, we aren't allowed to use dictionary definitions because we need to use foofoo from Doctor Fantastic's big guide to religion.
So let's go to the basic roots of the words, which I absolutely defy you to refute.
Almost everyone here understands what a prefix is, I hope, so I won't go into it in terrible detail:
Gnosis (the greek root not the religion) refers to knowledge. Agnostic refers to a lack of knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a deity, Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a deity.
These two terms are NOT interchangeable in any way, shape, or form.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 01:29:03 am
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.
These aren't actually the definitions you provided.QuoteAtheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.
Then you don't know what the words mean, and apparently refuse to see what they mean even after it's been explained to you about a half-dozen times. I suggest you stop trying to argue the point. It's a dead horse, and its legs were broken to begin with.
Let's see, we aren't allowed to use dictionary definitions because we need to use foofoo from Doctor Fantastic's big guide to religion.
So let's go to the basic roots of the words, which I absolutely defy you to refute.
Almost everyone here understands what a prefix is, I hope, so I won't go into it in terrible detail:
Gnosis (the greek root not the religion) refers to knowledge. Agnostic refers to a lack of knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a deity, Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a deity.
These two terms are NOT interchangeable in any way, shape, or form.
Unless you have a lack of belief in a deity based on a lack of knowledge.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 01:35:32 am
Let's see, we aren't allowed to use dictionary definitions because we need to use foofoo from Doctor Fantastic's big guide to religion.
That's it. I will not have you sullying the name of Doctor Fantastic. Do you realize what he did for me and my wife when she went into premature labor? Do you? I don't think you do.
Quote
So let's go to the basic roots of the words, which I absolutely defy you to refute.
This should be fun.
Quote
Gnosis (the greek root not the religion) refers to knowledge. Agnostic refers to a lack of knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a deity, Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a deity.
These two terms are NOT interchangeable in any way, shape, or form.
You're right while being wrong, and that is pretty amazing. If atheism is the lack of belief in a deity (which it is), and agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of the existence of a deity, then there is extremely obvious overlap, unless you're implying that you can have a lack of knowledge of the existence of a deity while simultaneously believing in one.
FYI, nobody is saying the terms are interchangeable, just that there is overlap. Do you understand the difference?
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 01:45:26 am
Here's a mental exerciseNot every god has to be good :P
Lets assume there is a god who is fully in control of our universe in a similar way to the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.
How then do we justify the day to day happenings of earth?
I.E. how is is possible for him to stand aside and let us kill/rape/torture/pillage.Agnostics don't believe or disbelieve. Atheists don't believe. There is overlap there.Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.
These aren't actually the definitions you provided.QuoteAtheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.
Then you don't know what the words mean, and apparently refuse to see what they mean even after it's been explained to you about a half-dozen times. I suggest you stop trying to argue the point. It's a dead horse, and its legs were broken to begin with.
Let's see, we aren't allowed to use dictionary definitions because we need to use foofoo from Doctor Fantastic's big guide to religion.
So let's go to the basic roots of the words, which I absolutely defy you to refute.
Almost everyone here understands what a prefix is, I hope, so I won't go into it in terrible detail:
Gnosis (the greek root not the religion) refers to knowledge. Agnostic refers to a lack of knowledge.
Theism refers to belief in a deity, Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a deity.
These two terms are NOT interchangeable in any way, shape, or form.
NO. Absolutely wrong.
Agnostics do not believe one way or the other because there is insufficient KNOWLEDGE to support or deny the hypothesis.
Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. No proof required.
One is logical, the other is not.
Post by: Willfor on January 24, 2011, 01:50:55 am
I never thought I would ever encounter fundamentalist agnosticism, but I was wrong!
Post by: CoughDrop on January 24, 2011, 02:00:37 am
"...D*mmit Bobbeh'!"
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 02:06:02 am
There's a very obvious solution to this problem, G-Flex. Farmerbob is not following the rules of the thread, and is continuing along the lines that have specifically be drawn to end this dispute. Stop talking to him, or he will simply continue to argue the same thing over and over again. And over and over again.
I never thought I would ever encounter fundamentalist agnosticism, but I was wrong!
I have requested that all of my posts be removed because it is utterly and completely rediculous to try to say that a group of individuals who require proof before DECIDING is in any way a subset of a group of people who have already decided.
If that falsehood is maintained, then logical discourse is impossible and I want my posts removed.
Post by: Willfor on January 24, 2011, 02:08:50 am
Cool story, broThere's a very obvious solution to this problem, G-Flex. Farmerbob is not following the rules of the thread, and is continuing along the lines that have specifically be drawn to end this dispute. Stop talking to him, or he will simply continue to argue the same thing over and over again. And over and over again.
I never thought I would ever encounter fundamentalist agnosticism, but I was wrong!
I have requested that all of my posts be removed because it is utterly and completely rediculous to try to say that a group of individuals who require proof before DECIDING is in any way a subset of a group of people who have already decided.
If that falsehood is maintained, then logical discourse is impossible and I want my posts removed.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 24, 2011, 02:12:12 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 02:17:05 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 02:28:43 am
An Agnostic rejects both Theism and Atheism. Yet, for some reason some people want to say that Agnosticism is a part of Atheism.
What this means is that Agnostics by this faulty definition reject their own beliefs. Think about that for a second please.
Post by: fqllve on January 24, 2011, 02:41:53 am
No wait, that was semantics too.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 02:44:04 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 02:44:49 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 24, 2011, 02:47:58 am
I suggest that we just stop circling the drain with Farmerbob, because it's not going to get us anywhere.
We can go plenty of places, provided that you remove the completely absurd and meaningless assertion that Agnosticism is a part of Atheism.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 03:11:05 am
Post by: Micro102 on January 24, 2011, 03:33:37 am
But reading this, wouldn't that mean that Agnostics 1) simply can't make up their minds or 2) Don't know about any religion at all?
Post by: Max White on January 24, 2011, 04:09:08 am
Stop being a completely ignorant schmuck.An agnostic is similar to an athiest in that they lack a diety or worship. The only differance between them is that one is sure about their lack of diety, the other is open minded if the correct evidence is given to them.
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve. You can make any number of subgroupings and imaginary whatnots that you care to, but Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common. Trying to pretend that they do is ignorant.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 04:14:37 am
You either are saying that Dawkins wouldn't believe in a god if evidence of his existence would be presented to him, or that he(Dawkins) is not using the term Atheism properly.Stop being a completely ignorant schmuck.An agnostic is similar to an athiest in that they lack a diety or worship. The only differance between them is that one is sure about their lack of diety, the other is open minded if the correct evidence is given to them.
Theists believe in a god. Atheists do not. Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve. You can make any number of subgroupings and imaginary whatnots that you care to, but Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common. Trying to pretend that they do is ignorant.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 04:37:26 am
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 04:47:18 am
Back to the Catholic invention of the Big Bang, for instance?
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 04:51:07 am
duh, ninjaed.
Big Bang is Catholic?
Post by: CoughDrop on January 24, 2011, 04:56:40 am
Nobody decides against evidence.
Plenty of people do, but yes, let's talk about the theory of the big bang until someone misinterprets the meaning of 'theory' and we all argue over semantics once again. It will all be interesting, nonetheless.
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 05:06:36 am
Nope, nobody does. We just have different opinions on what "evidence" actually is.Nobody decides against evidence.
Plenty of people do, but yes, let's talk about the theory of the big bang until someone misinterprets the meaning of 'theory' and we all argue over semantics once again. It will all be interesting, nonetheless.
Big Bang is Catholic?Yes, the Big Bang was invented by a Belgian priest, and catholics are officially (as in, the pope said so) ok with both the BB theory and evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution). There's factions in christianity, as well ;)
Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)
Post by: Derekristow on January 24, 2011, 05:24:31 am
Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)
The Big Bang theory, with its definitive beginning to the universe, makes more sense for a religion than the steady state theory that was popular at the time. It was the only one that fit in with their existing beliefs.
Post by: Max White on January 24, 2011, 05:33:27 am
Yeah, I don't get what Max White is trying to say. Even a strong atheist would probably agree, in most cases, that they would agree a god exists if proper evidence were given; they just don't think that evidence exists.And that's why more people are agnostic then they think.
You can't prove a negitive, and there is a stunning lack of evidence for a god as explained in many holy works, such as the bible, therefor agnostic is the nice reasonable choice.
Agnostic: Were here for you.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 05:37:30 am
I don't know. When your diety is omnipotent, then it could just as well create any kind of universe.Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)
The Big Bang theory, with its definitive beginning to the universe, makes more sense for a religion than the steady state theory that was popular at the time. It was the only one that fit in with their existing beliefs.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 24, 2011, 05:41:17 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 24, 2011, 05:50:57 am
This is only semi-on-topic, but when I die I'm going to laugh like hell if one of the 'barbarian' or 'pagan' religions was right, while all three Abrahamic religions are wrong.Hey, be careful who you're talking around :P
But yes, if it turns out that we're all going to Hades... Would be strange (and rather amusing), to say the least.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 05:52:40 am
It may differ on the idea of why it is so (natural forces vs supernatural guidance) but I admire those willing to decide based on solid evidence.
I like reasonable people. :)
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 05:57:16 am
solid evidence [..]reasonable peopleSubjective terms. Hardcore literalists consider the bible as Word Of God as "solid evidence", and everyone who agrees with them "reasonable". Lucky for you and I, that group is rather small (yet vocal :( ).
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 06:06:28 am
solid evidence [..]reasonable peopleSubjective terms. Hardcore literalists consider the bible as Word Of God as "solid evidence", and everyone who agrees with them "reasonable". Lucky for you and I, that group is rather small (yet vocal :( ).
I guess my meaning of "reasonable" was those who are willing to give other's points of view an honest consideration, and to challenge their own beliefs if new information or evidence comes to light. Not folks who point at something, say it's Word of God, and declare it final.
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 24, 2011, 07:00:24 am
Sorry but as a mythology geek I have to point out Hades was the GOD of the underworld, alot of people seem to think it was named Hades as well.This is only semi-on-topic, but when I die I'm going to laugh like hell if one of the 'barbarian' or 'pagan' religions was right, while all three Abrahamic religions are wrong.Hey, be careful who you're talking around :P
But yes, if it turns out that we're all going to Hades... Would be strange (and rather amusing), to say the least.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 24, 2011, 07:02:27 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 24, 2011, 07:14:03 am
After searching around for about... five minutes or so, I haven't found anything against it. Of course, the internet isn't exactly well known for being correct all the time.Sorry but as a mythology geek I have to point out Hades was the GOD of the underworld, alot of people seem to think it was named Hades as well.This is only semi-on-topic, but when I die I'm going to laugh like hell if one of the 'barbarian' or 'pagan' religions was right, while all three Abrahamic religions are wrong.Hey, be careful who you're talking around :P
But yes, if it turns out that we're all going to Hades... Would be strange (and rather amusing), to say the least.
In any case, it's still technically correct like Il Palazzo said :P
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 07:54:49 am
Post by: scriver on January 24, 2011, 10:13:25 am
Post by: Andir on January 24, 2011, 10:57:26 am
That's still a correct sentence. If you're a Christian and you die, you go to Jesus.It's like... they become a new set of Underoos for Jesus. I mean, what else is he going to do with all those "souls." It'd be like having 4 billion little ceramic elephant figurines. Eventually they'd just get boring or start to look like the others in the collection. Maybe there's a shelf where he organizes the souls of the dead by color and nose shape.
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 11:13:04 am
(is what the Christian could answer ;) )
I notice that a lot of people (including believers) keep trying to second-guess a being that's way over their heads, as if they were that being. "If I were God, then I would [get bored/kill em all/stop all suffering/listen to prayers/prove my existence to mankind/make country X the best country in the world/etc]", and then sometimes continue and act as if that's really true, using it as either proof He doesn't exist, or use it as an excuse to do "evil", or whatever. I find this hubris annoying.
Post by: Andir on January 24, 2011, 01:24:21 pm
His love is endless, and He loves every single unique individual.In order to truly understand God, you simply place your beliefs in his action and it becomes more comfortable knowing the almighty is doing what you expect him to. Uncomfortable thoughts, like [he doesn't exist/he wants me to kill babies/he doesn't want me eating pigs], would make the god unlike you and therefore less believable. I mean, it's easier to say God did something that happened than to say he will do something miraculous in the future and have it happen. In that way, I'd say religion lives in the past events rather than being a way to live your future.
(is what the Christian could answer ;) )
I notice that a lot of people (including believers) keep trying to second-guess a being that's way over their heads, as if they were that being. "If I were God, then I would [get bored/kill em all/stop all suffering/listen to prayers/prove my existence to mankind/make country X the best country in the world/etc]", and then sometimes continue and act as if that's really true, using it as either proof He doesn't exist, or use it as an excuse to do "evil", or whatever. I find this hubris annoying.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 02:03:44 pm
You can't prove a negitive
Where do people get this idea? You can prove a negative with just as much ease or difficulty as you can prove a positive. Granted, you can't prove either absolutely, generally speaking.
Post by: Phmcw on January 24, 2011, 03:05:09 pm
Actually Siquo is the only non strong atheist whose belief make sense to me. He's not sure about the existence of a god, but he isn't sure of anything else either (at least theoretically).You can't prove a negitive
Where do people get this idea? You can prove a negative with just as much ease or difficulty as you can prove a positive. Granted, you can't prove either absolutely, generally speaking.
Anything else would be illogical.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 04:18:23 pm
Post by: TolyK on January 24, 2011, 04:19:49 pm
!!science!!
that is all. I believe that this "god" is only for random numbers.
Post by: Siquo on January 24, 2011, 05:48:02 pm
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.
Actually Siquo is the only non strong atheist whose belief make sense to me. He's not sure about the existence of a god, but he isn't sure of anything else either (at least theoretically).Oh, I'm a deist, not an atheist. I believe there is a God (through experience, so I've got EVIDENCE), but am completely unsure as to his nature. Or of the nature of anything, including my experience. But you need some sense of reality to survive in this reality, I guess.
Anything else would be illogical.
Uncomfortable thoughts, like [he doesn't exist/he wants me to kill babies/he doesn't want me eating pigs], would make the god unlike you and therefore less believable. I mean, it's easier to say God did something that happened than to say he will do something miraculous in the future and have it happen. In that way, I'd say religion lives in the past events rather than being a way to live your future.We all believe in the Gods that we want to believe in, is what you're saying :) Partly true, as far as excuses go, but there's scripture and knowledge and prophets on how to be a better person, a person you aren't yet. It's also about spiritual growth, about What Would Jesus Do, on how to grow beyond your own pettiness and become a better person. That's future, too.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 06:25:34 pm
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.
Fair enough. Although I would still have difficulty applying "benevolent" to a being which allows burning someone alive. Just because a bug is tiny and unintelligent by comparison to a human, doesn't make pulling its legs off slowly an ok thing to do, at least in my mind.
Wouldn't WWJD be just as hubristic though, to think that anyone could know what a divine being wants them to do or be?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 24, 2011, 06:28:41 pm
Insects aren't anything like humans. We have brainpower and comprehension untold times that of an insect, and with that a similarly increased capacity for suffering.Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 08:37:35 pm
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.
I would agree, if it weren't for the fact that we're talking about benevolence, which is an entirely human concept, and about a god that is generally described in very human terms to begin with. If God is really unknowable, why give him such human qualities?
Post by: Leafsnail on January 24, 2011, 08:40:31 pm
Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.
Oh, I'm a deist, not an atheist. I believe there is a God (through experience, so I've got EVIDENCE), but am completely unsure as to his nature. Or of the nature of anything, including my experience. But you need some sense of reality to survive in this reality, I guess.So uh... it's hubris to try and speculate on the nature of God, but not hubris to think that you and only you have experienced this completely impossible to understand being?
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 08:49:57 pm
Yes, it is. As horrifying as those events seem to you, it is impossible to guess what God thinks of that. I mean, how abhorred are you at the family of insects on the windshield of your car? It's that distance, from you to insect, times infinity. That's how far his thoughts are from yours. So yeah, I think that's hubris. Or egocentric.Oh, I'm a deist, not an atheist. I believe there is a God (through experience, so I've got EVIDENCE), but am completely unsure as to his nature. Or of the nature of anything, including my experience. But you need some sense of reality to survive in this reality, I guess.So uh... it's hubris to try and speculate on the nature of God, but not hubris to think that you and only you have experienced this completely impossible to understand being?
Well, Siquo didn't claim to be the only one as such to have such an experience, but I get what you're saying.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 24, 2011, 08:59:00 pm
Post by: Oakenshield on January 24, 2011, 09:04:09 pm
As a mythology geek, I have to insist that both the deity and his realm can be referred to as Hades :P . Just like with Hel and Hel of Norse mythology. Could have been a staple of European branched Indo-European religions, mayhaps?
I dissent that opinion. The Greek netherworld is quite clearly and overtly divided into two areas. The elysian fields, and tartarus, forming a pleasant/unpleasant dichotomy.
Hel's realm is also divided into locally distinct subcategories. Her castle, the outer plains, and Nastrond. None of them are pleasant. Example: In the generally open, clear area of the plains in question it takes so long to journey '1 day' that your hair turns completely gray and falls out, then your old, before you even get there. Nastrond is quite clearly another location as well, as it is described as being a 'strand' (coastal area), where the seas are venom, whirlpools lead to viper nests, and all sorts of unpleasantries await whomever is distinctly marked for that place.
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 09:09:23 pm
oh hi there
Quote
Hades
1590s, from Gk. Haides, in Homer the name of the god of the underworld, of unknown origin. The name of the god transferred in later Greek writing to his kingdom.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 24, 2011, 09:27:50 pm
Also, Siquo, what's this personal experience with god? Sorry if you've already pulled it up earlier, but I'm curious.
Post by: Oakenshield on January 24, 2011, 09:28:39 pm
Hades realm, whatever its general name may be, IS clearly divided into two distinct areas which have locally applied names.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 24, 2011, 09:38:41 pm
Hades realm, whatever its general name may be, IS clearly divided into two distinct areas which have locally applied names.It's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus) quite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphodel_Fields) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus#As_a_mythological_place) bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styx) more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheron) than (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium) two. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysian_Islands) And that's leaving out three of the rivers.
Post by: fqllve on January 24, 2011, 09:42:40 pm
Can someone tell me their allure to mythology? I have a friend that is quite into the Roman Parthenon along with all the stories and such, but he never seems to be able to come up with a reason as to why. I took two years of Latin and found the mythology aspect quite boring. Yes, I know you're talking about Greek mythology, but what I'm asking would apply to both.
I think it's the same reasons why fantasy appeals to people. Powerful beings in fantastic locations. Plus, mythology doesn't tend to pull any punches. It can be brutal, sadistic, and cruel. Even characters that we're supposed to sympathize with. You don't see much like that in modern fiction.
And personally, I believe religion is the window into culture, and by that fact inherently interesting.
And that's leaving out three of the rivers.
Including the best one! The Elders Scrolls IV: Lethe
Post by: Bauglir on January 24, 2011, 09:52:22 pm
*Meaning With Respect To, not White Raven Tactics [/mildly obscure joke]
Post by: G-Flex on January 24, 2011, 09:52:50 pm
Don't deliberately try to make me look like a dumb-ass. (yes YOU g-flex).
Hades realm, whatever its general name may be, IS clearly divided into two distinct areas which have locally applied names.
I never contradicted that, and I wasn't trying to make you look like a dumbass.
Can someone tell me their allure to mythology? I have a friend that is quite into the Roman Parthenon along with all the stories and such, but he never seems to be able to come up with a reason as to why. I took two years of Latin and found the mythology aspect quite boring. Yes, I know you're talking about Greek mythology, but what I'm asking would apply to both.
Mythology (and religion in general) touches upon basic human themes and represents the values and other sensibilities of a culture. This can be important whether you're interested in history, the human condition, or anything else related to those things.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 24, 2011, 09:54:10 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 24, 2011, 10:49:31 pm
WRT* God's benevolent nature; if we are to God as insects on the windshield are to us, God is not benevolent. I am not benevolent toward the insects that impact my windshield, or insects in general (beyond what I understand to be necessary to support the ecosystem, since I live there, but even that wouldn't apply to an omnipotent deity).
*Meaning With Respect To, not White Raven Tactics [/mildly obscure joke]
I agree.
On the topic of mythology, it's hard not to be at least mildly curious about tales of heroism, betrayal and other such struggles. Even better if it features a lady who can turn people into pigs, and a cyclops who gets his eye poked out.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 12:16:26 am
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?
Yes, because according to the basic infrastructure of the Abrahamic religions, our bodies are meat that merely provide us with a way to do things and interact with other souls in the physical world. The soul would not be permanently harmed by the meat ceasing to function in a house fire.
Post by: G-Flex on January 25, 2011, 12:21:48 am
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?
Yes, because according to the basic infrastructure of the Abrahamic religions, our bodies are meat that merely provide us with a way to do things and interact with other souls in the physical world. The soul would not be permanently harmed by the meat ceasing to function in a house fire.
Even the Judeo-Christian God cares about temporal suffering and death.
For what it's worth, most bodies aren't permanently harmed by things like domestic violence, or most forms of torture that are used these days. The point is that "permanent harm" isn't necessary. Suffering and pain (and the death of people) still have lasting effects, both for that person and the world around them. Even by Judeo-Christian logic, people dying and suffering tragically is normally a Pretty Bad Thing.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 12:37:21 am
Is it really hubris to hear about a family dying in a house fire, then hear people talking of an omnipotent, benevolent diety and think "That doesn't make sense."?
Yes, because according to the basic infrastructure of the Abrahamic religions, our bodies are meat that merely provide us with a way to do things and interact with other souls in the physical world. The soul would not be permanently harmed by the meat ceasing to function in a house fire.
Even the Judeo-Christian God cares about temporal suffering and death.
For what it's worth, most bodies aren't permanently harmed by things like domestic violence, or most forms of torture that are used these days. The point is that "permanent harm" isn't necessary. Suffering and pain (and the death of people) still have lasting effects, both for that person and the world around them. Even by Judeo-Christian logic, people dying and suffering tragically is normally a Pretty Bad Thing.
The Abrahamic god(s) care about things that affect your soul. Mental cruelty or anguish certainly are important, but they will not do permanent damage to your soul. You might be able to make the comparison that the Abrahamic god cares about your meat body to about the same extent that normal people care about their clothes. In essence, the clothes only matter to most people based on what effect they have on the meat body, but the clothes themselves are unimportant. The meat only matters to a deity based on the effect it has on the soul.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 25, 2011, 12:49:28 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 01:02:50 am
I've never heard of the "God loves you but doesn't care about your mortal suffering" theory before, but it does fit more with how the world is, I guess. That sort of a deity -would- allow the aforementioned fire, so the fire happening isn't evidence against Him.
It's not that drastic. Ask any Abrahamic priest which is more important, body or soul. Ask them why and you will get a thousand answers, but the gist of it is that the soul is just a rider in the body. The condition of the body CAN affect the development of the soul, but it cannot destroy it. So there would need to be concern about the body to some degree, but if the meat body is damaged or destroyed it's unimportant provided that the soul is properly tended.
Post by: G-Flex on January 25, 2011, 01:28:44 am
The Abrahamic god(s) care about things that affect your soul. Mental cruelty or anguish certainly are important, but they will not do permanent damage to your soul. You might be able to make the comparison that the Abrahamic god cares about your meat body to about the same extent that normal people care about their clothes. In essence, the clothes only matter to most people based on what effect they have on the meat body, but the clothes themselves are unimportant. The meat only matters to a deity based on the effect it has on the soul.
Yes, and temporal suffering has an effect on your soul and the souls of others. You think someone's parents dying in a fire won't affect them in the long-term? Or that same person being horribly burnt by that fire as a child?
but if the meat body is damaged or destroyed it's unimportant provided that the soul is properly tended.
Proper tending of the "soul" requires care of the body and lives of yourself and those around you as a community.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 01:33:10 am
The Abrahamic god(s) care about things that affect your soul. Mental cruelty or anguish certainly are important, but they will not do permanent damage to your soul. You might be able to make the comparison that the Abrahamic god cares about your meat body to about the same extent that normal people care about their clothes. In essence, the clothes only matter to most people based on what effect they have on the meat body, but the clothes themselves are unimportant. The meat only matters to a deity based on the effect it has on the soul.
Yes, and temporal suffering has an effect on your soul and the souls of others. You think someone's parents dying in a fire won't affect them in the long-term? Or that same person being horribly burnt by that fire as a child?but if the meat body is damaged or destroyed it's unimportant provided that the soul is properly tended.
Proper tending of the "soul" requires care of the body and lives of yourself and those around you as a community.
I never said otherwise. Are you disagreeing or agreeing? Be clearer in your intent.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 01:41:32 am
Everything your soul knows, it has seen, heard and felt through your body. In that way, your body defines your soul more then your soul defines your body. Therefor, suffering of the body is suffering of the soul.
If every day you get flogged into sumbission, your going to go into depression, or develop some other mental problem.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 25, 2011, 01:59:20 am
Ignoring the debate over the existance of a soul.
Everything your soul knows, it has seen, heard and felt through your body. In that way, your body defines your soul more then your soul defines your body. Therefor, suffering of the body is suffering of the soul.
Another interesting point is with brain damage. If the soul is the True You and the body merely a vessel, why can brain damage cause major changes in personality, morality, worldview and sometimes complete memory loss?
Post by: Willfor on January 25, 2011, 02:01:24 am
I've never heard of the "God loves you but doesn't care about your mortal suffering" theory before, but it does fit more with how the world is, I guess. That sort of a deity -would- allow the aforementioned fire, so the fire happening isn't evidence against Him.
It's not that drastic. Ask any Abrahamic priest which is more important, body or soul. Ask them why and you will get a thousand answers, but the gist of it is that the soul is just a rider in the body. The condition of the body CAN affect the development of the soul, but it cannot destroy it. So there would need to be concern about the body to some degree, but if the meat body is damaged or destroyed it's unimportant provided that the soul is properly tended.
Please stop making generalizations. I realise you are trying to help, but you're trying to say that everyone holds the same opinion of a subject that is often a doctrinal division. Watchman Nee even divides us up into three portions, Spirit, Soul and Body with the soul simply being a wrapper layer for compatibility between the physical and metaphysical domains. Christians of the more Rationalist variety will tell you that the body is the only concern we should have, and that the soul is what the bible was trying to refer to our brain as. Those are two different sides on ONE of the aspects of the Abrahamic religions, and they are by no means the only divisions on this subject.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 02:01:33 am
Another interesting point is with brain damage. If the soul is the True You and the body merely a vessel, why can brain damage cause major changes in personality, morality, worldview and sometimes complete memory loss?
I just said were going to assume there is, in fact, a soul. I wanted to dodge that bullet. Now were going into a big debate over if there is or is not a soul, and it is all your fault.
Post by: G-Flex on January 25, 2011, 02:09:08 am
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 02:18:36 am
He's not arguing that a soul doesn't exist, he's asking how physical harm to your brain can change all observable aspects of a person even though the "soul" is extraphysical.But you know the question is just begging for the 'There is no soul, just tangable chemical impulses' responce.
It;s like saying he didn't kill anybody, he just squeezed the trigger. It's all action and reaction.
Post by: fqllve on January 25, 2011, 02:20:45 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 25, 2011, 02:26:33 am
Hello, I'm the reincarnation believer here (at least, the only one I know of that visits this thread).Ignoring the debate over the existance of a soul.
Everything your soul knows, it has seen, heard and felt through your body. In that way, your body defines your soul more then your soul defines your body. Therefor, suffering of the body is suffering of the soul.
Another interesting point is with brain damage. If the soul is the True You and the body merely a vessel, why can brain damage cause major changes in personality, morality, worldview and sometimes complete memory loss?
Yeah, I'd say that your soul would be something more like... a conscience? At least, while you're "alive". Your consciousness is your self as you appear on this planet, but your soul is who YOU are. So I would say that brain damage damages how you communicate with your body. So your soul "advises" your brain, and your brain controls your body. But your consciousness is in your brain/body, not your soul. But you still "are" your soul. It's the difference between being something (a soul), and experiencing life as something else (a body).
Ooh, perfect opportunity to use a quote from C.S. Lewis (a Christian, actually). “You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” I really like this quote, and it came from a Christian, of all people.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 02:31:20 am
and it came from a ChristianSo did the big band aparently. They give us more cool stuff then you might expect. I think it is just the more extreme ones that dispute evolution and say the earth in 6,000 years old are more vocal then the rest, so give them all a bad name.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 25, 2011, 02:32:36 am
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 25, 2011, 02:32:59 am
Yeah, I know that a lot of good things have come from Christians, but it's more about it being a spiritual quote that I can agree with. Especially because I have very different views than most Christians.and it came from a ChristianSo did the big band aparently. They give us more cool stuff then you might expect. I think it is just the more extreme ones that dispute evolution and say the earth in 6,000 years old are more vocal then the rest, so give them all a bad name.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 02:40:22 am
Ignoring the debate over the existance of a soul.
Everything your soul knows, it has seen, heard and felt through your body. In that way, your body defines your soul more then your soul defines your body. Therefor, suffering of the body is suffering of the soul.
Another interesting point is with brain damage. If the soul is the True You and the body merely a vessel, why can brain damage cause major changes in personality, morality, worldview and sometimes complete memory loss?
Provided that there is a soul as defined in most Abrahamic traditions, the soul is the core. Your soul receives input from the body, and the body is the tool of the soul. This is why it is important to try to keep the body in good condition, if possible. The brain is provably active when we do anything with the body, so if there is anything which is facilitating the soul in communicating with the body, it would almost inarguably be the brain. In this scenario, brain damage may prevent the soul from perceiving (accurately) what is happening in the body, and/or may scramble the data passing from from the soul to the body.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 25, 2011, 02:44:38 am
I've never heard of the "God loves you but doesn't care about your mortal suffering" theory before, but it does fit more with how the world is, I guess. That sort of a deity -would- allow the aforementioned fire, so the fire happening isn't evidence against Him.
It's not that drastic. Ask any Abrahamic priest which is more important, body or soul. Ask them why and you will get a thousand answers, but the gist of it is that the soul is just a rider in the body. The condition of the body CAN affect the development of the soul, but it cannot destroy it. So there would need to be concern about the body to some degree, but if the meat body is damaged or destroyed it's unimportant provided that the soul is properly tended.
Please stop making generalizations. I realise you are trying to help, but you're trying to say that everyone holds the same opinion of a subject that is often a doctrinal division. Watchman Nee even divides us up into three portions, Spirit, Soul and Body with the soul simply being a wrapper layer for compatibility between the physical and metaphysical domains. Christians of the more Rationalist variety will tell you that the body is the only concern we should have, and that the soul is what the bible was trying to refer to our brain as. Those are two different sides on ONE of the aspects of the Abrahamic religions, and they are by no means the only divisions on this subject.
Please stop trying to insist that we must cover each and every single possibility in each and every statement we make.
You cannot meaningfully consider every belief structure when making comments about belief structures.
Post by: fqllve on January 25, 2011, 02:47:13 am
We're avoiding debate about religious issues in this thread? ???
Well, it can only lead back into "alright, well then define 'soul.'" And we just came out of that jungle.
But if religious debate isn't about frothing at the mouth over fine distinctions of definition then I dunno what it is about.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 02:56:50 am
Well, it can only lead back into "alright, well then define 'soul.'"
The bottem of your shoe.
No, forget that, just the shoe.
Post by: fqllve on January 25, 2011, 03:08:02 am
Although, my personal definition of soul is the quality of emotiveness in music.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 03:09:37 am
Although, my personal definition of soul is the quality of emotiveness in music.I like the tangent that implys. Although is it simply music, or art?
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 25, 2011, 04:46:25 am
Doesn't happen too much on religious debates. I like these forums. :)
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 05:11:56 am
Insects aren't anything like humans. We have brainpower and comprehension untold times that of an insect, and with that a similarly increased capacity for suffering.Which is exactly what an insect would say about bacteria. The argument that we still don't pull out their legs is a better one though, but the whole "soul" thing counters that.
Yes, even if the body suffers, the soul suffers, but maybe it's necessary suffering. I give my child inoculations as well. And that's what a lifetime of suffering is, compared to the infinity of the soul: a mere pinprick. Apart from that, I still think that "benevolence" and "good" are subjective terms, and therefore not applicable to an absolute being. God is benevolent in his own right, by definition, but what that actually means in practical terms... I have no idea. Perhaps we get "time out", a few years of total freedom from God before he takes us up into the fold again, and that temporary freedom is called "life". If we had memory of where we come from, we'd have no total freedom, so that makes sense. It's just another explanation for the inexplicable.
@Leafsnail: I have no knowledge. I had an experience that led me to believe. I'm not saying you should believe what I believe. Relax
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 05:43:28 am
I like that I asked a question about religious stuff, and got multiple though-provoking answers that were all quite lucid and civil.Well that was one good question, combined with the fact that most of the people on the forums are good people, it it possible!
Doesn't happen too much on religious debates. I like these forums. :)
I'm not a good person though, I'm hoping for a position in politics, so I can;t afford to be a good person. :P
Post by: Phmcw on January 25, 2011, 09:54:24 am
Post by: Leafsnail on January 25, 2011, 09:57:52 am
Drugs, on the other hand... which can often be felt altering your sense of self and the decisions you made, and then have their affects wear off afterwards, are a much stronger bit of evidence that the soul isn't completely extraphysical, I'd say. At the very least, it has to be affected by stuff going on in your body.
Post by: Phmcw on January 25, 2011, 10:01:23 am
"Provided that there is a soul as defined in most Abrahamic traditions, the soul is the core. Your soul receives input from the body, and the body is the tool of the soul. This is why it is important to try to keep the body in good condition, if possible. The brain is provably active when we do anything with the body, so if there is anything which is facilitating the soul in communicating with the body, it would almost inarguably be the brain. In this scenario, brain damage may prevent the soul from perceiving (accurately) what is happening in the body, and/or may scramble the data passing from from the soul to the body.".
Failure to communicate wouldn't lead to this. Memory loss, yes. Deep changes in personality no.
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 10:02:05 am
As to what it is, definitions vary wildly. Again, that doesn't help anyone who wants to "debunk" souls ;)
Post by: Sergius on January 25, 2011, 11:15:16 am
@Zombie: We tend to have our moments :)Insects aren't anything like humans. We have brainpower and comprehension untold times that of an insect, and with that a similarly increased capacity for suffering.Which is exactly what an insect would say about bacteria. The argument that we still don't pull out their legs is a better one though, but the whole "soul" thing counters that.
Actually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.
RE: Souls. I like the definition of Souls from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: people are people (or demons), souls are just some thing inside them that you can trade for if you're a vampire, or something ;) And if you lose it... you can just get another, for cheap. Just find a gypsy.
But yes, we can still be benevolent towards bugs, even if they're bugs. We can't be mean to them and then claim we're benevolent.
Post by: Andir on January 25, 2011, 11:47:24 am
The soul is not the mind. It's not your personality, or your character.But some people would a house fire that, if horrifying enough, can alter ones very personality. It can make you depressed, afraid, alone, and several other personality altering effects. Claiming that a god doesn't really care what your body goes through is basically stating that this god doesn't care that there's garbage going in, only the garbage coming out.
As to what it is, definitions vary wildly. Again, that doesn't help anyone who wants to "debunk" souls ;)
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 01:08:59 pm
Actually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.Yeah and insects can fly. Talking doesn't make you special.
Claiming that a god doesn't really care what your body goes through is basically stating that this god doesn't care that there's garbage going in, only the garbage coming out.Your mind and body are nothing, they are the blink of an eye in the view of an eternal soul. The importance we give to this mind and body and life is way out of proportion (if you believe in eternal souls, that is :) ).
Post by: Sergius on January 25, 2011, 01:25:33 pm
Actually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.Yeah and insects can fly. Talking doesn't make you special.
Talking about which species is more special than another. Since insects can't do that, they can't compare themselves with bacteria.
Can insects "fly" a discussion that they're different than bacteria? No they can't.
Post by: Willfor on January 25, 2011, 02:00:05 pm
Or can they? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ijI-g4jHg) :PActually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.Yeah and insects can fly. Talking doesn't make you special.
Talking about which species is more special than another. Since insects can't do that, they can't compare themselves with bacteria.
Can insects "fly" a discussion that they're different than bacteria? No they can't.
Post by: Sergius on January 25, 2011, 02:02:48 pm
Or can they? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ijI-g4jHg) :PActually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.Yeah and insects can fly. Talking doesn't make you special.
Talking about which species is more special than another. Since insects can't do that, they can't compare themselves with bacteria.
Can insects "fly" a discussion that they're different than bacteria? No they can't.
Touche, my friend.
Another interesting question: can we make insects worship us as gods? 8)
Post by: Nilocy on January 25, 2011, 02:48:24 pm
Or can they? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ijI-g4jHg) :PActually, you accidentally brought up an interesting point: humans versus insects is nothing like insects versus bacteria. Case in point? We can say things about them.Yeah and insects can fly. Talking doesn't make you special.
Talking about which species is more special than another. Since insects can't do that, they can't compare themselves with bacteria.
Can insects "fly" a discussion that they're different than bacteria? No they can't.
Touche, my friend.
Another interesting question: can we make insects worship us as gods? 8)
Give them free will and don't tell them about it. And just say it was all part of our plan.
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 03:21:44 pm
Another interesting question: can we make insects worship us as gods? 8)Worship is a human invention. I don't believe God is interested in it.
Maybe insects already worship us, in their own insecty ways.
Although if I'd have my say, mosquitoes can quit that whole drinking the blood of the gods ceremony.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 25, 2011, 04:31:01 pm
Worship is a human invention. I don't believe God is interested in it.
I'd agree with that, since even if the most popular religion is 'correct', five to six billion people are not worshipping correctly. I would imagine a god would have a far greater success rate than one in seven, or so.
If you count all kinds of worship as 'correct' though, it makes it a much more robust number. Doesn't answer the question of why a deity needs pathetically weak beings to worship Him though.
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2011, 04:35:48 pm
If you count all kinds of worship as 'correct' though, it makes it a much more robust number. Doesn't answer the question of why a deity needs pathetically weak beings to worship Him though.One could argue it is not for the god, but for the human.
Post by: Andir on January 25, 2011, 07:25:15 pm
Egotism then. Why else would you think worshipping is required? To elevate yourself above those that do not worship via ritual... to prove that you are somehow "better" because you hold yourself to some standard?If you count all kinds of worship as 'correct' though, it makes it a much more robust number. Doesn't answer the question of why a deity needs pathetically weak beings to worship Him though.One could argue it is not for the god, but for the human.
Post by: Willfor on January 25, 2011, 07:53:55 pm
Post by: fqllve on January 25, 2011, 07:56:20 pm
Egotism then. Why else would you think worshipping is required? To elevate yourself above those that do not worship via ritual... to prove that you are somehow "better" because you hold yourself to some standard?
Because religion doesn't work if people don't devote themselves to it. It isn't about being "better" than non-worshipers, although it can lead to those feelings. Worship is mostly about control, worship is how you become part of the religious community. Worship is the core of the religion, it's what allows a religion to establish itself as a community, it's what induces people to follow its rules.
Post by: optimumtact on January 26, 2011, 04:43:40 am
Egotism then. Why else would you think worshipping is required? To elevate yourself above those that do not worship via ritual... to prove that you are somehow "better" because you hold yourself to some standard?
Because religion doesn't work if people don't devote themselves to it. It isn't about being "better" than non-worshipers, although it can lead to those feelings. Worship is mostly about control, worship is how you become part of the religious community. Worship is the core of the religion, it's what allows a religion to establish itself as a community, it's what induces people to follow its rules.
I always thought that religion was so popular in the middle ages as it could be used as a form of control to maintain civil peace and the rule of Law.
It was one of the buttresses of Royal Rule that it was mandated by the Divine and therefore the Monarch was the highest authority in the land below the God.
Post by: Max White on January 26, 2011, 06:48:22 am
Egotism then. Why else would you think worshipping is required? To elevate yourself above those that do not worship via ritual... to prove that you are somehow "better" because you hold yourself to some standard?
Well that was some what of a leap in logic, and not what I was going for at all. In some religens, cemermonial dance is required, and ta da! They just learnt about coordernation and developed stronger bodys for it. I know some eastern religions give young boys large daggers when they reach a certain age. Knife saftey anybody? You know those christan chior boys? Not only did they learn self disiplin from practicing singing in a very orderly and cerominal fashion, but they picked up musical talent aswell.
Almost every religion ever has all sorts of practices, and they are most oftern the type that develop long term skills.
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 07:01:00 am
Post by: eerr on January 26, 2011, 08:06:23 am
Food-wise.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 26, 2011, 10:30:13 am
Post by: Andir on January 26, 2011, 02:54:43 pm
Rituals to improve body strength, keep sand out of the eyes (cooling, whatever), practice knife safety, and protect ones body from sickness in eating unprepared pork... mean nothing except to the community and your self image. Therein lies my correlation. To improve your image in the community you followed the customs of the religion and (in essence) you only really do it to improve your body image. (If your god only cares about your soul ...)
Edit: Also, if your god does care about your body, then why doesn't he care just as much about the fly you smashed? I think it's rather egotistical to think that your god only cares about human bodies and not the bodies of planets, trees, rocks, flies...
Edit2: Sorry, formatting for flow...
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 04:07:02 pm
(I'm not actually religious, but I figure I can at least try to give what would amount to a fairly Abrahamic perspective on this)
Post by: Siquo on January 26, 2011, 04:27:12 pm
Post by: Phmcw on January 26, 2011, 04:53:00 pm
"Oh I gave you a body, so I expect you to take good care of it because it's a gift". We don't give a fuck when a dwarf loose an arm, usually, or can be supremely annoyed in other case. Why do you expect the act of this supreme being to be more understandable.
Maybe hitler was his idea of a good laugh. Maybe he doesn't exist. Maybe there is a race of invisible space dragoon in your backyard, maybe you're the choose one that is going to free us of the matrix and morpheus is looking for you.
All that is pointless speculation. As far as I am concerned, all that is literally nonsense. We'll have a better idea (or no idea at all) when we die. Until then, I'll work with the things I can observe, and not masturbate intellectually (or would you rather say find solace?) with the idea of a super parent in space.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 26, 2011, 05:02:13 pm
Well, this is a discussion about religious and non-religious stuff, so speculation is kind of part and parcel of it. Understanding various beliefs and why people believe them is always interesting to me.
While remaining a non-theist, I personally find a sort of non-interventionist Ahura Mazda and Angra something (something that sounds like "man") to be appealing, although no more likely than anything else. That's just me though.
Post by: Max White on January 26, 2011, 05:20:58 pm
Sure, but if we use the logic that the body is merely a vessel and your god really doesn't care if it's involved in some horrific house fire...
Rituals to improve body strength, keep sand out of the eyes (cooling, whatever), practice knife safety, and protect ones body from sickness in eating unprepared pork... mean nothing except to the community and your self image. Therein lies my correlation. To improve your image in the community you followed the customs of the religion and (in essence) you only really do it to improve your body image. (If your god only cares about your soul ...)
Edit: Also, if your god does care about your body, then why doesn't he care just as much about the fly you smashed? I think it's rather egotistical to think that your god only cares about human bodies and not the bodies of planets, trees, rocks, flies...
Edit2: Sorry, formatting for flow...
Ignoring the debate over the existance of a soul.
Everything your soul knows, it has seen, heard and felt through your body. In that way, your body defines your soul more then your soul defines your body. Therefor, suffering of the body is suffering of the soul.
If every day you get flogged into sumbission, your going to go into depression, or develop some other mental problem.
If abuse of the body is abuse of the soul, then taking care of your body is taking care of you soul.
Post by: Andir on January 26, 2011, 05:26:38 pm
He cares about your body and not the body of a fly for the same reason that I care about my computer case but not an empty one on the side of the road. The reason God cares about your body is that how you take care of your body affects how well you can take care of yourself in all ways, and also affects others.So a fly is an empty shell? There's no soul? That was my point. And it was touched on before. The amount of anthropomorphizing (or should I say the hubris in thinking that your god only cares about humans) is crazy. Maybe this god created flies knowing full well that most people would drive their cars into them or be annoyed and slap them out of the sky and only those people who respected this construct of his will attain heavenly rewards upon passing.
(I'm not actually religious, but I figure I can at least try to give what would amount to a fairly Abrahamic perspective on this)
So Max, how do you know your god doesn't expect you to respect the fly?
This is why I find more solace in thinking that we are systematic automatons with no souls, but systems so complex we have not mapped behavioral outcomes yet.
Post by: Max White on January 26, 2011, 05:38:33 pm
I'm agnostic remember. I don't realy have a god myself, I debate on a theorietical point of veiw with the understanding that I don't know what god is or is like or even if he/she/it existis, but within certain parameters my arguments are very reasonable.
Well, that is a lie, I do beleive 100% in a god. Although that is going by my definition of god, not the vast majority of people. I define god as 'the collective will and morals of everybody within a specific church', therefor if your going to define god after something that exists, it's hard to say it dosn't exist.
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 06:06:51 pm
He cares about your body and not the body of a fly for the same reason that I care about my computer case but not an empty one on the side of the road. The reason God cares about your body is that how you take care of your body affects how well you can take care of yourself in all ways, and also affects others.So a fly is an empty shell? There's no soul? That was my point.
(I'm not actually religious, but I figure I can at least try to give what would amount to a fairly Abrahamic perspective on this)
According to Abrahamic religions, yeah, there's not. I'm not saying I agree, or anything like that.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 26, 2011, 06:18:09 pm
Well, that is a lie, I do beleive 100% in a god. Although that is going by my definition of god, not the vast majority of people. I define god as 'the collective will and morals of everybody within a specific church', therefor if your going to define god after something that exists, it's hard to say it dosn't exist.
That's true, in a way. Then again, I am immortal from that point of view, since I am made of matter present at the 'beginning' of the universe, and long after the last of humanity dies the matter that makes up my body will remain (albiet taking innumerable different forms over the eons).
Still, not exactly the immortality one would hope for, if one ever wanted such a horrible idea as living forever.
Post by: Max White on January 26, 2011, 06:20:22 pm
That's true, in a way. Then again, I am immortal from that point of view, since I am made of matter present at the 'beginning' of the universe, and long after the last of humanity dies the matter that makes up my body will remain (albiet taking innumerable different forms over the eons).Yes, it is reletivly easy to be right when you change what words mean. For that reason, rather then debating definitions to as fine a point as possible, I try to roll with a common definition, unless of corse, it is definition itself that is up for debate.
Still, not exactly the immortality one would hope for, if one ever wanted such a horrible idea as living forever.
Post by: G-Flex on January 26, 2011, 09:39:43 pm
Well, that is a lie, I do beleive 100% in a god. Although that is going by my definition of god, not the vast majority of people. I define god as 'the collective will and morals of everybody within a specific church', therefor if your going to define god after something that exists, it's hard to say it dosn't exist.
That's true, in a way. Then again, I am immortal from that point of view, since I am made of matter present at the 'beginning' of the universe, and long after the last of humanity dies the matter that makes up my body will remain (albiet taking innumerable different forms over the eons).
Still, not exactly the immortality one would hope for, if one ever wanted such a horrible idea as living forever.
In other words, you aren't immortal; the matter/energy making up your body is. I mean, if I build a chair and then grind it up into sawdust, I'm not going to say the chair still exists, just a bunch of sawdust that once composed one.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 26, 2011, 09:48:57 pm
Just as if someone talks about immortality, they're generally not talking about merely the specks of their matter and energy lingering after they are dead.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 26, 2011, 11:26:45 pm
Well, yeah. I was just changing the definition of immortal to make it something to make it true. If God is the collective will and morals of a group of people, then God is real. I don't think that's what most people are speaking of when they say 'God', though, they generally mean an omnipotent creator deity..
But is this God? Depending on the group this 'God' could easily be Satan. I like the idea that you create your own god, that if you believe a religion, then that makes it real. In a similar thread on a different forum I heard the idea that everything is an illusion and all we see is our body's attempt to make sense of the world. God, religion and the like could be another filter, or sense that our bodies and minds use to percieve the universe.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 26, 2011, 11:40:28 pm
However, if religion is another way of perceiving the universe, it seems strange that we have so many different, mutually exclusive religions.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 26, 2011, 11:44:36 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 28, 2011, 05:20:14 am
Post by: Max White on January 28, 2011, 06:01:31 am
So, who's had a divine experience AND won't say "It's personal"?Ray Comfort will tell you that eating a banana is a divine experience.
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 06:25:46 am
So, who's had a divine experience AND won't say "It's personal"?Isn't all experience personal?
Post by: Shade-o on January 28, 2011, 06:46:37 am
Post by: G-Flex on January 28, 2011, 07:11:14 am
So, who's had a divine experience AND won't say "It's personal"?Ray Comfort will tell you that eating a banana is a divine experience.
And he's got Kirk Cameron to back him up!
Post by: GamerKnight on January 28, 2011, 07:21:15 am
P.S. The whole Jehovah's Witness knocking on doors to tell you about the good word is a myth. Just saying.
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 07:22:10 am
To clarify, will not refuse to share any of the details of said experience on the basis of it being personal.There's loads of examples of those.
If you mean "not subjective", that's impossible. See also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience).
Ninjafakeedit: Jehova's do knock on doors. I knew someone whose mother used to do that.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 28, 2011, 07:26:08 am
Ninjafakeedit: Jehova's do knock on doors. I knew someone whose mother used to do that.Ayup. Sure they do. I've been having visits from the same bunch of JW prosyletizers for the last ten years or so. They just never give up.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 28, 2011, 07:27:54 am
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 07:50:47 am
You can safely assume that ANY generalisation is wrong.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 28, 2011, 08:03:30 am
"All of them" is a gross generalisation."All generalizations are false."
You can safely assume that ANY generalisation is wrong.
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 08:06:43 am
"All generalizations are false!"Well, yeah. That's kind of a tautology. Unless you define true and false according to statistical significance. Which is one of my problems with Science (which, for the record, I love in many other aspects).
Post by: GamerKnight on January 28, 2011, 08:14:22 am
This isn't really related to the thread, is it?
Post by: Phmcw on January 28, 2011, 08:36:39 am
Nope in science that is a common mistake. A law have to be true all the time to be accepted. Even a statistical one. (Such even will happen 67% of the time, on average, is true only if i's always 67% of the time)."All generalizations are false!"Well, yeah. That's kind of a tautology. Unless you define true and false according to statistical significance. Which is one of my problems with Science (which, for the record, I love in many other aspects).
Mos studies, (often sociological or medical) that only link two data are mock up science. Sometime, sadly, it's the best that we have, but that's still not good, nor a scientific demonstration, even thought advertising and news are quite fond to present hem as such.
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 08:54:44 am
Nope in science that is a common mistake. A law have to be true all the time to be accepted.Only measurably, and measuring is averaged statistically, accounting for measurement errors is done statistically, and ignoring outliers is standard practice. When I say Science I mean Physics, by the way, as the rest is not worthy of the capital S.
Edit: well, Mathematics is pure enough to be worthy, but that's not really a science per se. Plus that statistics comes from Mathematics and I'll never forgive them for that.
Post by: Phmcw on January 28, 2011, 09:04:46 am
Except when quantum behavior come into play, but then the phenomenon have a probabilistic nature.
And again the laws are expected to give the exact probabilities involved.
Ignoring outliers is standard malpractice. In any serious experience you don't do that. (Except when you're lazy ;D but it's rather an "ho snap" move than a correct procedure).
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 09:44:17 am
Ignoring outliers is standard malpractice. In any serious experience you don't do that. (Except when you're lazy ;D but it's rather an "ho snap" move than a correct procedure).Have you ever performed physics experiments? Out of the 1000 (if you're lazy ;) ) measurements there's bound to be a few outliers. It's standard procedure to try to explain them, and if you can't, ignore them. Now the fact that I've taken 1000 measurements that all differ just ever so slightly means that I've got 1000 wrong answers, but you try to get close to the real one by using analysis such as averaging those numbers, you get your deviance and distribution type, and you've got a statistical answer that's bound to be wrong anyway. That's what I don't like about it. It works, but I don't like it.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2011, 11:57:08 am
That's what I don't like about it. It works, but I don't like it.What are you expecting? There's no such thing as perfect apparatus that removes all measurement error, or an experiment that takes every factor into account...
Post by: Farmerbob on January 28, 2011, 01:40:16 pm
How we view the world is certainly not a complete picture of the actual state of things. A lot of the light spectrum is outside our ability to perceive, there is a lot of sound above or below our range of hearing and the many things are on a scale far too vast or too tiny for us to be able to study (at this time, anyway).
However, if religion is another way of perceiving the universe, it seems strange that we have so many different, mutually exclusive religions.
If dark matter and dark energy are part of what we need in order to explain the universe, why do we have do many people arguing about it?
At least scientists (rarely) kill each other over their pet theories. Scientists also have it pretty easy, considering that dark matter and dark energy aren't all powerful, all knowing, and actively not wanting us to be able to prove they exist.
Post by: Andir on January 28, 2011, 02:29:19 pm
Because right now Dark Energy and Dark Matter are simply there to make the equations work... They are like imaginary numbers in Mathematics. Until someone finds/proves those two pieces, the whole expansion theory remains theory (even though some claim it as fact...)How we view the world is certainly not a complete picture of the actual state of things. A lot of the light spectrum is outside our ability to perceive, there is a lot of sound above or below our range of hearing and the many things are on a scale far too vast or too tiny for us to be able to study (at this time, anyway).
However, if religion is another way of perceiving the universe, it seems strange that we have so many different, mutually exclusive religions.
If dark matter and dark energy are part of what we need in order to explain the universe, why do we have do many people arguing about it?
At least scientists (rarely) kill each other over their pet theories. Scientists also have it pretty easy, considering that dark matter and dark energy aren't all powerful, all knowing, and actively not wanting us to be able to prove they exist.
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 03:40:31 pm
What are you expecting? There's no such thing as perfect apparatus that removes all measurement errorI'm expecting an explanation, not an estimate. Admittedly, we've got nothing better than an estimate, but I'm not going to settle for it.
Post by: Andir on January 28, 2011, 04:02:43 pm
Even finding the constant for gravity is tough... you have differences in air pressure/density when dealing with fall rates. Granted, most of this is eliminated with Vacuum chambers, but what if some magnetic force is interacting with it? Solar flare?What are you expecting? There's no such thing as perfect apparatus that removes all measurement errorI'm expecting an explanation, not an estimate. Admittedly, we've got nothing better than an estimate, but I'm not going to settle for it.
The only true way to get it as close as you can to "true" is to run hundreds/thousands of tests to eliminate as much "noise" as possible. Creating a tool to eliminate all that is next to impossible.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 28, 2011, 04:46:25 pm
If a theory's testable effects are true 992 times out of 1000, surely it is more useful than a theory which is true 500 times out of 1000. Even so, one rarely is ever 100% certain of anything in science.
There's a reason even Gravity is still a theory. We can't get 100% certainty, and it's doubtful we ever will. 99.99% will just have to do sometimes, unfortunately.
Post by: Phmcw on January 28, 2011, 04:56:55 pm
Post by: Max White on January 28, 2011, 04:57:14 pm
Nope in science that is a common mistake.Sorry, bt science puts everything on a scale between true and false, and nothing is at either ends. We just accept things as being statisticaly true or false, but never compleatly true of false. Newtonian physics is a good example of why. The shape of the earth is another example.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2011, 05:15:11 pm
Even finding the constant for gravity is tough... you have differences in air pressure/density when dealing with fall rates. Granted, most of this is eliminated with Vacuum chambers, but what if some magnetic force is interacting with it? Solar flare?It's not too hard to measure. It's more that it varies everywhere. Take the "school textbook" value, 9.8. It's true that you can round it off to 9.8 wherever you are in the world. However, you cannot go to any more significant figures unless you specify where you are. My gravitational constant is gonna be slightly different than yours.
I'm expecting an explanation, not an estimate. Admittedly, we've got nothing better than an estimate, but I'm not going to settle for it.Well, you get that too with further research. Like we have both an (extremely accurate) estimate as to the resistivity of copper, and a strong explanation for why it is that value.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 28, 2011, 05:18:48 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 28, 2011, 05:22:06 pm
Who wants to share their atheistic experiences?
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2011, 05:25:17 pm
Who wants to share their atheistic experiences?Oh man, I have these amazing atheistic experiences every single night.
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 28, 2011, 05:26:38 pm
I am sad that nobody wants to share their religious experiences.Since I converted to atheism, I'm not afraid of afterlife anymore.
Who wants to share their atheistic experiences?
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 28, 2011, 06:19:59 pm
Same here!I am sad that nobody wants to share their religious experiences.Since I converted to atheism, I'm not afraid of afterlife anymore.
Who wants to share their atheistic experiences?
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 28, 2011, 06:22:50 pm
Since I "converted" to my religion, I'm not afraid of the afterlife anymore either.I am sad that nobody wants to share their religious experiences.Since I converted to atheism, I'm not afraid of afterlife anymore.
Who wants to share their atheistic experiences?
Post by: Siquo on January 28, 2011, 06:44:33 pm
Well, you get that too with further research. Like we have both an (extremely accurate) estimate as to the resistivity of copper, and a strong explanation for why it is that value.No you don't, the premise is wrong. Eventually you're going to run up against physical limits beyond which there is no measuring. You may believe there's nothing beyond that point, because it's unmeasurable, but we've passed many of those points (where we believed there wasn't anything smaller) already within Science. Eventually, we'll have to continue without it.
Post by: Phmcw on January 28, 2011, 06:49:01 pm
The most important part of physics is, in my opinion, modelization. <== help is that an English word?
Post by: Shade-o on January 28, 2011, 07:07:44 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 28, 2011, 07:15:49 pm
Since I converted to atheism, I'm not afraid of afterlife anymore.
Ditto here. Life is good, and death is peace, and all that.
@Siquo: Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but when you say "continue without it" what is the "it?"
Post by: G-Flex on January 28, 2011, 07:19:14 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 28, 2011, 07:28:30 pm
I'm as secular as they come, but I don't really think "death is peace" follows. In death, there's not even any context within which to state that there is peace.
It's hard to explain what I mean, besides the 'peace' of the time before you were born. Utter non-existance without any thought, hope, fear, pain, ect. More 'at eternal rest' sort of peace.
Post by: Shade-o on January 28, 2011, 07:41:56 pm
I personally hope to be encased inside a bronze statue of myself. Most of the effects only come through in a situation where civilisation has turned to a primitive state, possibly after an apocalypse.
+Really impressive
+Extremely durable
+Preserves body in mummified state
+Inspires worshippers
+False historical influence
-Possibly encased while still alive
-Melted down to use in tools
-Could just be buried in rubble
Some sort of marble tomb would also be good.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 28, 2011, 07:44:08 pm
No you don't, the premise is wrong. Eventually you're going to run up against physical limits beyond which there is no measuring. You may believe there's nothing beyond that point, because it's unmeasurable, but we've passed many of those points (where we believed there wasn't anything smaller) already within Science. Eventually, we'll have to continue without it.Uh, reread what I said. It'll still be an estimate (although one that's more than accurate enough for all reasonable uses of it) but we DO have an explanation for why copper has that resistivity. Just because you can't get to some kind of arbitrary absolutely true value (which could easily have infinite, non repeating figures, like the large majority of numbers) doesn't mean you can't understand what's going on.
Post by: breadbocks on January 28, 2011, 10:42:35 pm
(Ignore this if the thread isn't for general religious stuff along with atheism.)
I was born a jew, and refuse to be converted to Christianity for the simple fact that by my definitions, the standard evangelist is a hypocrite, and a terrorist. Now before you rage post about how that can't possibly be true, think about it.
First, the more extreme of the two. Terrorism. So, Wikipedia defines terrorism as follows:
Quote
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.Now, how is the main way evangelists attempt to "coerce" you into converting? "You'll burn in hell." Now, that sounds pretty damn threatening to me, perhaps even terror causing. See where I'm going?
Now, for hypocrisy. They try to force their laws on you, including, unless I'm mistaken, the Ten Commandments. What is one of them? What roughly translates to "Pray to no one but me". Who do they pray to? Jesus.
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 28, 2011, 10:49:07 pm
Or at least, that is what Christians in my family believe.
Post by: Max White on January 28, 2011, 10:49:31 pm
Who do they pray to? Jesus.So close, why did you have to throw that onto the end?
No, they do not pray to Jesus, in fact Jesus said it was wrong to pray to him, you should pray to the god of the bible.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 28, 2011, 11:20:59 pm
Post by: GamerKnight on January 29, 2011, 02:25:02 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 29, 2011, 03:15:18 am
So really, the only thing spreading the word achieves is sending people to hell.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 29, 2011, 04:39:06 am
Plus, without knowledge of God they cannot be judged because of their ignorance, but once enlightened they are free to be damned.
So really, the only thing spreading the word achieves is sending people to hell.
I've heard from somewhere that children that die before they know what god is go to heaven. So wouldn't a truly selfless Christian go around murdering babies before Satan has a chance to get a hold on them?
Actually researching how that works is more than likely to bring up some major contradictions so I'm not even going to bother.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 04:51:57 am
How the morbid idea that we're all born with the taint of sin on our souls even before we take our first breath ever become popular, I don't know. Thankfully I don't think all Christians think this way anymore.
As for what happens to my body after I die, I don't really care too much to be honest. Cremation if I had to choose, just because I find the idea of some researcher digging me up in 1000 years time to see how we lived back then, and then sticking my skull in a nice numbered box in some dark archive a bit undignified and creepy.
Post by: Shade-o on January 29, 2011, 05:12:17 am
Which is why babies get to go to heaven now.
Post by: lemon10 on January 29, 2011, 05:23:10 am
Original sin was removed when God sacrificed himself to himself to save the future humans he damned back when the first two ate from the tree he put next to them because they were tricked by the evil snake that he also put next to them.If god is omnipotent, then it follows that he would know the future (as is supported by having prophecy in the bible), so god told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, already knowing that they were destined to eat from it (unless he intervened in some way) and that the snake would tempt them into doing it), so yeah, it is all kinda gods fault.
Which is why babies get to go to heaven now.
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 05:47:30 am
There's Original Sin, which apparently we are all born with.It was origenaly meant to be sex. We exist because of sex. It's not had to reason that babys are sinful. People have just about forgotten what the story of Adam and Eve was meant to symbolise, in place of some silly childrens bible story lacking any coda.
That's right folks. Sex, something that is these days thought of as a basic human need, something that it is unhealthy to go without, is a sin. Thank you god for making it againt my welfair to live a good life. Even the alternatives are sins, but even worse of sins!
Post by: G-Flex on January 29, 2011, 06:06:39 am
If god is omnipotent, then it follows that he would know the future (as is supported by having prophecy in the bible), so god told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, already knowing that they were destined to eat from it (unless he intervened in some way) and that the snake would tempt them into doing it), so yeah, it is all kinda gods fault.
Yeah, this is the basic free will problem. If God has full control over the initial conditions of the universe (and things he creates in it, including full control over any state of the universe at any point), and knows what'll happen to it over time, then it is, in effect, entirely up to him how things go.
Quote from: Mark Twain's Skeptical Writings (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainbes.htm)
Mamma. You disobedient child, have you been associating with that irreligious Hollister again?
Bessie. Well, mamma, he is interesting, anyway, although wicked, and I can't help loving interesting people. Here is the conversation we had:
Hollister. Bessie, suppose you should take some meat and bones and fur, and make a cat out of it, and should tell the cat, Now you are not to be unkind to any creature, on pain of punishment and death. And suppose the cat should disobey, and catch a mouse and torture it and kill it. What would you do to the cat?
Bessie. Nothing.
H. Why?
B. Because I know what the cat would say. She would say, It's my nature, I couldn't help it; I didn't make my nature, you made it. And so you are responsible for what I've done -- I'm not. I couldn't answer that, Mr. Hollister.
H. It's just the case of Frankenstein and his Monster over again.
B. What is that?
H. Frankenstein took some flesh and bones and blood and made a man out of them; the man ran away and fell to raping and robbing and murdering everywhere, and Frankenstein was horrified and in despair, and said, I made him, without asking his consent, and it makes me responsible for every crime he commits. I am the criminal, he is innocent.
B. Of course he was right.
H. I judge so. It's just the case of God and man and you and the cat over again.
B. How is that?
H. God made man, without man's consent, and made his nature, too; made it vicious instead of angelic, and then said, Be angelic, or I will ill punish you and destroy you. But no matter, God is responsible for everything man does, all the same; He can't get around that fact. There is only one Criminal, and it is not man.
Mamma. This is atrocious! it is wicked, blasphemous, irreverent, horrible!
Bessie. Yes'm, but it's true. And I'm not going to make a cat. I would be above making a cat if I couldn't make a good one.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 06:25:24 am
Original sin was removed when God sacrificed himself to himself to save the future humans he damned back when the first two ate from the tree he put next to them because they were tricked by the evil snake that he also put next to them.
Which is why babies get to go to heaven now.
I'm not an expert on Bible stuff, but I was under the impression the whole sacrifice thing was to give Humanity a chance at getting into Heaven. The idea that all humans are deserving only of damnation, but God grants salvation to those who repent and turn to Him and Jesus.
I could be wrong though, because I haven't read a Bible for a long time.
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 06:31:44 am
Larry: Well what is it god? I'm all ears!
God: Well, you see Larry, I sort of have this problem.
Larry: But your God! You can do everything! What sort of problem could you have?
God: Well, Larry, you see, I can't... I just can't forgive people!
Larry: Wait, you can't forgive people? I mean I know it can be hard sometimes, but you just can't forgive?
God: Hey, Don't judge me! I have to see fat people having sex every day! You don't know what it's like!
Larry: Well, ok. But what do we do about it?
God: Well, I have this plan. I'm going to send myseld down to earth, as my son, and do all sorts of magic untill people beleive in me!
Larry: Ok, but how will that help. Lots of people already beleive in you.
God: Wait, here's the good part. I piss of the Romans, and they kill me, and then a few days later I get back up and come here to hang out with me!
Larry: And that will help you forgive people?
God: Fuck no, it's just a fun way to pass time.
Post by: TolyK on January 29, 2011, 06:54:03 am
God: Larry, there is something I need to tell you.lol. rotflmaool.
Larry: Well what is it god? I'm all ears!
God: Well, you see Larry, I sort of have this problem.
Larry: But your God! You can do everything! What sort of problem could you have?
God: Well, Larry, you see, I can't... I just can't forgive people!
Larry: Wait, you can't forgive people? I mean I know it can be hard sometimes, but you just can't forgive?
God: Hey, Don't judge me! I have to see fat people having sex every day! You don't know what it's like!
Larry: Well, ok. But what do we do about it?
God: Well, I have this plan. I'm going to send myseld down to earth, as my son, and do all sorts of magic untill people beleive in me!
Larry: Ok, but how will that help. Lots of people already beleive in you.
God: Wait, here's the good part. I piss of the Romans, and they kill me, and then a few days later I get back up and come here to hang out with me!
Larry: And that will help you forgive people?
God: Fuck no, it's just a fun way to pass time.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 07:22:34 am
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 08:28:39 am
Me, I've got a passage from Iain Banks' Transition:
Quote
Infinities within infinities within infinities...
The human brain quails when confronted with such proliferating
vastness. We think we have a grasp of it, brandishing our
numbers - natural, rational, complex, real, unreal - in the face of
all that's inestimable, but truthfully these resources are mere
talismans, not practical tools. A comfort; no more.
Post by: Willfor on January 29, 2011, 10:03:24 am
Also, sex is so sinful that the fact that there is an entire book dedicated to it in the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=HCSB) must be a huge disappointment to him, huh?
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2011, 02:40:47 pm
The best part about that Mark Twain quote is how it makes the parents of criminals to be the criminals and not their children. It's the perfect philosophy for this age.If they're young children, then this is actually the case.
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 02:48:44 pm
True. At a certain point, you lose control, and therefore responsibility.The best part about that Mark Twain quote is how it makes the parents of criminals to be the criminals and not their children. It's the perfect philosophy for this age.If they're young children, then this is actually the case.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 03:47:12 pm
Post by: Shade-o on January 29, 2011, 04:30:50 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 06:44:14 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 06:46:41 pm
Or by choice. I could keep controlling my children even after they grow up, but that's generally seen as unhealthy.So is killing everybody in your street by flooding them out, and then when you see there dead bodys floating around feeling bad, so you paint a flag with many colours to say your sorry and it will not happen again.
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 06:47:37 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 06:48:17 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 06:51:49 pm
And you don't know what would've happened if that had not happened. Taking a random biblical example to "show" that God is evil (a popular hobby around here ::)) doesn't really add to the current point: Are you responsible for your children, and if so, is God responsible for what we do?
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 06:53:00 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2011, 06:53:56 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 07:27:15 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 07:30:16 pm
I'm not trying to say God is evil. I'd have to believe in God to say that, and if He does exist, I don't believe he is evil. Not benevolent, but not evil either.Well that is silly reasoning.
Interesting fact: Sherlock Homes was an opium addict. Does that imply he existed? If we can apply 'good' and 'bad', both very abstract qualitys, to something equaly as abstract as say, legislation, then surly we can apply it to a diety who may or may not exist.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 07:35:01 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 07:44:54 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2011, 07:51:45 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 07:54:50 pm
Action: Water them down a little.
Moral compication: God feels bad about the floating bodys.
Resolution: The rainbow!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2011, 07:56:44 pm
Reason: People are sinners.MetalSlimeHunt's Analysis: Lawful Evil
Action: Water them down a little.
Moral compication: God feels bad about the floating bodies.
Resolution: The rainbow!
Post by: Siquo on January 29, 2011, 07:58:05 pm
Reason: People are sinners.And we've never been that bad ever since, so it worked. Now what?
Action: Water them down a little.
Moral compication: God feels bad about the floating bodys.
Resolution: The rainbow!
Post by: Leafsnail on January 29, 2011, 07:59:33 pm
And we've never been that bad ever since, so it worked.Uh... really?
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:03:49 pm
MetalSlimeHunt's Analysis: Lawful EvilRealy? Because I got lawful good from that. I mean have you ever see lawful good? It is mistakable for evil.
And we've never been that bad ever since, so it worked. Now what?Objection! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2011, 08:14:03 pm
MetalSlimeHunt's Analysis: Lawful EvilRealy? Because I got lawful good from that. I mean have you ever see lawful good? It is mistakable for evil.QuoteGenerally, killing almost everything on Earth is considered evil. God did it because we broke his rules enough, and thus the action is lawful.
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:18:49 pm
See, it is lawful, so were going along the 'good to evil' axis now.MetalSlimeHunt's Analysis: Lawful EvilRealy? Because I got lawful good from that. I mean have you ever see lawful good? It is mistakable for evil.QuoteGenerally, killing almost everything on Earth is considered evil. God did it because we broke his rules enough, and thus the action is lawful.
But, god felt regret, showing killing the people wasn't something he realy wanted to do, showing good. Therefor, lawful good!
And I mean realy, has there ever been a lawful good character that hasn't had to deal with some struggle between lawful and good? It's the biggest running theme in alignments! Every other alignment has their shit together.
And that is why I am chaotic nutural.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 29, 2011, 08:22:01 pm
But, god felt regret, showing killing the people wasn't something he realy wanted to do, showing good. Therefor, lawful good!"So yeah, so sorry I decided to kill everything on Earth there. Here, have a rainbow."
I'm not really buying that for a second. Lawful Evil.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 29, 2011, 08:25:03 pm
neutural.
But, god felt regret, showing killing the people wasn't something he realy wanted to do, showing good. Therefor, lawful good!"So yeah, so sorry I decided to kill everything on Earth there. Here, have a rainbow."
I'm not really buying that for a second. Lawful Evil.
nah, god is lawfull good, but also a minmaxer who chose intelligence and wisdom as dumpstats
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:26:14 pm
nah, god is lawfull good, but also a minmaxer who chose intelligence and wisdom as dumpstatsStill, kick ass charisma! You should see he's bluffs.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 29, 2011, 08:30:46 pm
So God is a sorcerer then?nah, god is lawfull good, but also a minmaxer who chose intelligence and wisdom as dumpstatsStill, kick ass charisma! You should see he's bluffs.
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:32:01 pm
So God is a sorcerer then?Na, he is a ranger, just a poorly built one.
Post by: Shade-o on January 29, 2011, 08:35:33 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 08:39:50 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:43:09 pm
He's got the Leadership feat too apparently, and with his level and high Charisma, that's a lot of followers.Also, due to some cross classing, he has a tad of illusinist going on. It's a mess of statistics realy.
Post by: Shade-o on January 29, 2011, 08:51:49 pm
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 08:52:57 pm
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 09:12:55 pm
Does anyone really think the mass genocide of -every species- on Earth save a few selected individuals could have a 'good' reason?
Post by: Max White on January 29, 2011, 09:14:18 pm
Ok, going back on-topic.It killed off all those 10 legged spiders. Nasty little things they were! Glad they were destroyed.
Does anyone really think the mass genocide of -every species- on Earth save a few selected individuals could have a 'good' reason?
Post by: Bauglir on January 29, 2011, 09:28:45 pm
Ok, going back on-topic.It killed off all those 10 legged spiders. Nasty little things they were! Glad they were destroyed.
Does anyone really think the mass genocide of -every species- on Earth save a few selected individuals could have a 'good' reason?
In b4 Solifuge.
EDIT: In seriousness, my answer to the question posed is, "No, because our definitions of 'good' are different from those in the minds of the people who wrote and/or edited the Bible. Whether you think that's evidence God can't exist because the influence of those people apparently overrode His will, or evidence that the Bible is not the Literal Word of God because it's not universally applicable to all moralities, but still has important Truths, is probably a much more deeply-rooted position than this one question."
Post by: Farmerbob on January 29, 2011, 11:19:08 pm
Original sin was removed when God sacrificed himself to himself to save the future humans he damned back when the first two ate from the tree he put next to them because they were tricked by the evil snake that he also put next to them.If god is omnipotent, then it follows that he would know the future (as is supported by having prophecy in the bible), so god told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, already knowing that they were destined to eat from it (unless he intervened in some way) and that the snake would tempt them into doing it), so yeah, it is all kinda gods fault.
Which is why babies get to go to heaven now.
A lot of parents, when their children become teenagers, choose to set some limits they expect to be violated. Curfew, chores, things along those lines. In the Abrahamic tradition, God certainly knew that Adam and Eve would be seduced into eating from the tree. However, he didn't simply tell them "I know you will sin so I'm kicking you out of the garden before you actually do it." He told them what the limits were, and when they (inevitably) chose to violate them, he punished them.
Clarifying a bit in that vein, punishing your child for not taking out the trash or coming home late before they actually do it would be terribly counterproductive, even though you KNOW they eventually will mess up. You tell them what you expect, and when they violate those expectations without a VERY good reason, you punish them.
Seems logically straightforward to me based on human psychology, and the Abrahamic God's omniscience.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 29, 2011, 11:31:29 pm
Post by: Willfor on January 30, 2011, 12:51:06 am
Man thought he could fix things with glue and tape instead of simple honesty, and coming clean that he had done what he was told not to. That is the original sin. The tree was simply there as something that is tempting. If the same story were to be made today it would be the Tree of the Infinite Orgasms. The fact that the primary temptation was knowledge, should, in my opinion, be seen in a positive context, as a sign that at one time humanity's greatest longing was for more knowledge.
Because it sure ain't that today.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 30, 2011, 01:40:02 am
I guess I'm stuck on the whole "if you follow the urges I placed within you, I'll throw you in a lake of fire to burn forever" thing. It doesn't make sense that He punishes people for things that He sees happening, has full power to stop, and yet does nothing.
Post by: eerr on January 30, 2011, 01:47:52 am
Hmm... that really doesn't change the point though, does it? Surely he knew they would lie, as well?
I guess I'm stuck on the whole "if you follow the urges I placed within you, I'll throw you in a lake of fire to burn forever" thing. It doesn't make sense that He punishes people for things that He sees happening, has full power to stop, and yet does nothing.
DUPLICITY
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 30, 2011, 01:54:43 am
The fact that the primary temptation was knowledge, should, in my opinion, be seen in a positive context, as a sign that at one time humanity's greatest longing was for more knowledge.Yes, we are so not knowlage loving, with our scientific method and public education and space exploration and modern medicine and physics and biology and genetics and internet and exponentially increasing technological advancement. Surely, those warmonger Bronze Age tribesmen who wrote the original Adam and Eve story were the pinnacle of human achievement.
Because it sure ain't that today.
If knowlage is what you want Willfor, you're in the right time. We know more now than we ever have before, and it's only going to get better from here on out.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 30, 2011, 02:01:50 am
Hmm... that really doesn't change the point though, does it? Surely he knew they would lie, as well?
I guess I'm stuck on the whole "if you follow the urges I placed within you, I'll throw you in a lake of fire to burn forever" thing. It doesn't make sense that He punishes people for things that He sees happening, has full power to stop, and yet does nothing.
DUPLICITY
Er... huh? If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, he has the powers I said.
If you mean "they lied so they deserved it", then I'd disagree, since lying is hardly a crime worthy of eternal damnation. At least, in my mind.
Post by: Willfor on January 30, 2011, 02:12:55 am
Yes, we are so not knowlage loving, what our scientific method and public education and space exploration and modern medicine and physics and biology and genetics and internet and exponentially increasing technological advancement. Surely, those warmonger Bronze Age tribesmen who wrote the original Adam and Eve story were the pinnacle of human achievement.The point of what I said was in the exact opposite direction you went with it. In that bronze age tribe you so eagerly dismiss, a story about the longing for knowledge was what sold. That is what got written down from their oral traditions.
If knowlage is what you want Willfor, you're in the right time. We know more now than we ever have before, and it's only going to get better from here on out.
The smart people today are also presenting oral tradition that is rife with the longing for knowledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESGLojNYSo). And yes, Lady Gaga is a genius, she knows exactly what sells today. In our media and movies we get bombarded with anti-intellectual garbage. There was anti-intellectual garbage back then too, of course, but then again we're quick to discount the fact that as people, we're no better than they were. We are better equipped to sent lots of messages though, and it seems like we're using it to cull our own curiosity.
Post by: G-Flex on January 30, 2011, 03:30:11 am
Yes, we are so not knowlage loving, with our scientific method and public education and space exploration and modern medicine and physics and biology and genetics and internet and exponentially increasing technological advancement. Surely, those warmonger Bronze Age tribesmen who wrote the original Adam and Eve story were the pinnacle of human achievement.
If knowlage is what you want Willfor, you're in the right time. We know more now than we ever have before, and it's only going to get better from here on out.
You're completely missing the point. The relative level of knowledge/technology between now and the Bronze Age has nothing to do with us being better than them; it has to do with the centuries of time in between for progress to have occurred. You have absolutely no evidence that people long for knowledge less today than they did in times past except for two bizarre, unfounded notions: One, that having a particular level of technology implies a particular level of intelligence or intellectual curiosity even when you're comparing societies centuries apart, and two, that Bronze Age peoples were "warmongering tribesmen" who weren't intellectually curious.
Human longing for knowledge has always existed, and we've always had intellectuals, storytellers, and other people seeking to both examine and improve upon the human condition in various ways. If that were not the case, we would never have developed any of those things you had mentioned, or any of their technological/intellectual precursors.
Societies have also likely drifted between different stages of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism over the years/centuries and across space and borders, so it's foolish to make any terribly specific claims about an entire era of human history (and you seemed to be confused about what those even are) is anti-intellectual or didn't care about knowledge. What I can say with certainty is that, at this point in time, as an American, my own country has a startlingly anti-intellectual trend in its discourse and ideology. The fact that we still have scientists working on computers and genetics does not change that fact.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 30, 2011, 04:02:59 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 30, 2011, 04:03:34 am
Logical would actually be putting an impassable fence around the tree. Just because someone's stupid enough to drink and drive doesn't mean you have to hand them a six-pack and say 'if they die it's not my fault'.
No, logical would be that if the Abrahamic god did not want humans to eat of the tree, the tree wouldn't have been there.
Omniscient...
Remember human psychology. You don't get good results punishing people for things they haven't done yet.
Just like you might *know* your teenager will probably stay out after curfew every now and then, the Abrahamic god Certainly knew he would be disobeyed. The Abrahamic god was said to gave humans free will. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what they will do with it.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 30, 2011, 04:18:56 am
Post by: Max White on January 30, 2011, 04:24:46 am
Maybe God is a human. Maybe when we die we get our own universe to create. That would be so f***ing awesome.While lacking any philisophical ground... Yes, that would be awesome! As long as you could just nuke it and start again when you wanted.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 30, 2011, 06:04:38 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 30, 2011, 06:22:01 am
Quote
- Create Garden of Eden
(Good)
- Create humans
(Good)
-Do not give humans morals, knowledge, willpower or sense of perspective
(Get around to it later?)
- Create fruit that grants knowledge and fruit that grants divinity in the Garden, but must never be eaten
(???)
- Create snake in the garden that exists to guide naive humans into eating forbidden fruit
(???)
- Leave the Garden and disavow all control and knowledge of what is about to happen
(???)
- Cast out humans to slowly die
(Why not?)
Those main three are giving me the most trouble right now.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 30, 2011, 06:30:22 am
(Check out what happened between Abel the Shepherd and Cain the Farmer.)
Post by: GamerKnight on January 30, 2011, 06:32:02 am
Post by: lemon10 on January 30, 2011, 07:33:09 am
Nope, if god is omniscient, then free will is a myth by definition (since everything you are going to do is pre-destined). God could have easily prevented something that he knew would happen if he didn't intervene.Logical would actually be putting an impassable fence around the tree. Just because someone's stupid enough to drink and drive doesn't mean you have to hand them a six-pack and say 'if they die it's not my fault'.
No, logical would be that if the Abrahamic god did not want humans to eat of the tree, the tree wouldn't have been there.
Omniscient...
Remember human psychology. You don't get good results punishing people for things they haven't done yet.
Just like you might *know* your teenager will probably stay out after curfew every now and then, the Abrahamic god Certainly knew he would be disobeyed. The Abrahamic god was said to gave humans free will. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what they will do with it.
Whats the point in even setting a curfew, if you know already that your child will NEVER follow it. The only reason i could think of would be if you keep your child punished forever for not following curfew (or in this case, give original sin to the human race, punishing them forever (or till jesus came i guess unless your jewish) for something god knew was coming and didn't feel like preventing).
Post by: Farmerbob on January 30, 2011, 07:52:08 am
Quote- Create Garden of Eden
(Good)
- Create humans
(Good)
-Do not give humans morals, knowledge, willpower or sense of perspective
(Get around to it later?)
- Create fruit that grants knowledge and fruit that grants divinity in the Garden, but must never be eaten
(???)
- Create snake in the garden that exists to guide naive humans into eating forbidden fruit
(???)
- Leave the Garden and disavow all control and knowledge of what is about to happen
(???)
- Cast out humans to slowly die
(Why not?)
Those main three are giving me the most trouble right now.
If there is an Abrahamic god, the transition makes perfect sense, IMHO.
When created, man was more than a beast, but not much more. Some language, morals definitely under construction = Early childhood.
Eating the fruit of the tree at the urgings of the serpent = young adults + peer pressure + puberty + sex / drugs
Being kicked out of the garden and being responsible for your own self = Adult child that needs to get out because they won't live by parental rules.
1) Remember that if the Abrahamic God is an omniscient and all powerful being, it is fully aware of your entire life from birth to death.
2) IF the Abrahamic god does exist and chooses not to prove that existence, it's most certainly on purpose. Why? Think about the difference between faith worship and worship of power. Parallels can be seen in this world easily. There are people who gravitate towards ideals and charity, and those that gravitate towards power and wealth. If an Abrahamic god exists and is known to exist, it is absolutely certain that there would be at least as many beggars and demanders as there would be faithful worshippers. Omniscient and all powerful says *nothing* about temper, and if the books of the Abrahamic faith have any truth in them, the Abrahamic god can get a bit grumpy at times. It might be that by locking himself away from certain knowledge if him, he avoids that which he knows will eventually anger him.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 30, 2011, 08:01:24 am
Nope, if god is omniscient, then free will is a myth by definition (since everything you are going to do is pre-destined). God could have easily prevented something that he knew would happen if he didn't intervene.Logical would actually be putting an impassable fence around the tree. Just because someone's stupid enough to drink and drive doesn't mean you have to hand them a six-pack and say 'if they die it's not my fault'.
No, logical would be that if the Abrahamic god did not want humans to eat of the tree, the tree wouldn't have been there.
Omniscient...
Remember human psychology. You don't get good results punishing people for things they haven't done yet.
Just like you might *know* your teenager will probably stay out after curfew every now and then, the Abrahamic god Certainly knew he would be disobeyed. The Abrahamic god was said to gave humans free will. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what they will do with it.
Whats the point in even setting a curfew, if you know already that your child will NEVER follow it. The only reason i could think of would be if you keep your child punished forever for not following curfew (or in this case, give original sin to the human race, punishing them forever (or till jesus came i guess unless your jewish) for something god knew was coming and didn't feel like preventing).
All comparisons between kids and Adam and Eve aside, how does knowledge of something all of a sudden become control of something?
A being both omnipotent and omniscient can do pretty much everything it wants - including allowing that which he created to develop independently, or with very limited and covert guidance.
Post by: CoughDrop on January 30, 2011, 10:36:38 am
All comparisons between kids and Adam and Eve aside, how does knowledge of something all of a sudden become control of something?
A being both omnipotent and omniscient can do pretty much everything it wants - including allowing that which he created to develop independently, or with very limited and covert guidance.
Good point, but still, an omnipotent and omniscient being KNOWS of all the hardships that will happen to its creations and their posterity, but a father doesn't create all of the hardship in his child's life.
...So it depends entirely on if this being cared to look into the future or not... Which I'm pretty sure none of us know.
Post by: ECrownofFire on January 30, 2011, 01:48:01 pm
Post by: lemon10 on January 30, 2011, 05:37:49 pm
Wagh, i keep typing up the post, then my family members get on and close it.Nope, if god is omniscient, then free will is a myth by definition (since everything you are going to do is pre-destined). God could have easily prevented something that he knew would happen if he didn't intervene.Logical would actually be putting an impassable fence around the tree. Just because someone's stupid enough to drink and drive doesn't mean you have to hand them a six-pack and say 'if they die it's not my fault'.
No, logical would be that if the Abrahamic god did not want humans to eat of the tree, the tree wouldn't have been there.
Omniscient...
Remember human psychology. You don't get good results punishing people for things they haven't done yet.
Just like you might *know* your teenager will probably stay out after curfew every now and then, the Abrahamic god Certainly knew he would be disobeyed. The Abrahamic god was said to gave humans free will. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what they will do with it.
Whats the point in even setting a curfew, if you know already that your child will NEVER follow it. The only reason i could think of would be if you keep your child punished forever for not following curfew (or in this case, give original sin to the human race, punishing them forever (or till jesus came i guess unless your jewish) for something god knew was coming and didn't feel like preventing).
All comparisons between kids and Adam and Eve aside, how does knowledge of something all of a sudden become control of something?
A being both omnipotent and omniscient can do pretty much everything it wants - including allowing that which he created to develop independently, or with very limited and covert guidance.
Basically, by the mere fact that it is possible to know the future, and that the future is set, nothing that a human does can change the future. The only one who can change the future (due to knowing it) would be god, and when he creates something, he knows the future, so basically anything that happens is caused indirectley by him.
He doesn't even need to have any impact on the world for free will to exist, it is impossible for both him being omniscient and free will to exist, mainly due to the fact that if he made humans in such a way that they had free will, he wouldn't be able to predict what they would do (and if he knows what they do for sure in the future, then free will doesn't exist.
Ill link you to the wikipedia article on determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Free_will_and_determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Free_will_and_determinism)
Post by: Shade-o on January 30, 2011, 06:08:15 pm
If there is an Abrahamic god, the transition makes perfect sense, IMHO.
When created, man was more than a beast, but not much more. Some language, morals definitely under construction = Early childhood.
Eating the fruit of the tree at the urgings of the serpent = young adults + peer pressure + puberty + sex / drugs
Being kicked out of the garden and being responsible for your own self = Adult child that needs to get out because they won't live by parental rules.
1) Remember that if the Abrahamic God is an omniscient and all powerful being, it is fully aware of your entire life from birth to death.
2) IF the Abrahamic god does exist and chooses not to prove that existence, it's most certainly on purpose. Why? Think about the difference between faith worship and worship of power. Parallels can be seen in this world easily. There are people who gravitate towards ideals and charity, and those that gravitate towards power and wealth. If an Abrahamic god exists and is known to exist, it is absolutely certain that there would be at least as many beggars and demanders as there would be faithful worshippers. Omniscient and all powerful says *nothing* about temper, and if the books of the Abrahamic faith have any truth in them, the Abrahamic god can get a bit grumpy at times. It might be that by locking himself away from certain knowledge if him, he avoids that which he knows will eventually anger him.
So God actually set up the Garden so that Humans would follow an elaborate series of events that culminated in him pretending to be surprised and angry and dooming them to an unpleasant life outside it, all so that he could smite more of them at a time later on?
That's incredibly evil.
Post by: Siquo on January 30, 2011, 06:12:17 pm
it is impossible for both him being omniscient and free will to existAh, but how would he "know" the future? God is a black box, in that aspect. Take the stonelayer from xkcd (http://xkcd.com/505/), he knows all there is to know in the universe, but he has to model it first to see it happen. He is omnipotent and omniscient, and yet he has to do the whole calculation before he knows the answer. Now, for the people in that model or calculation, it's never clear if they're real or just the model. So that's us again. So yeah, God might not know where the universe ends up when he started it, and we don't know which version we are.
Omniscience != Determinism.
That's incredibly evil.Or he could let us live without knowledge and like animals. I don't know which is evil.
Post by: Andir on January 30, 2011, 06:48:34 pm
Post by: Siquo on January 30, 2011, 07:31:07 pm
Post by: Andir on January 30, 2011, 07:54:10 pm
I do nor believe any of the above.Just asking questions. ;)
Post by: Max White on January 30, 2011, 08:06:42 pm
I can disprove omniscience in one simple step: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle :PI thought that only applied in an open system, like say, every single point in our universe, but were you to exist outside of the universe, you could treat the universe as a closed system.
Post by: lemon10 on January 30, 2011, 08:16:04 pm
He would know the future because he is omniscient. omniscience means he knows everything, all the time, and since the future is part of everything, he would know the future without having to calculate it.it is impossible for both him being omniscient and free will to existAh, but how would he "know" the future? God is a black box, in that aspect. Take the stonelayer from xkcd (http://xkcd.com/505/), he knows all there is to know in the universe, but he has to model it first to see it happen. He is omnipotent and omniscient, and yet he has to do the whole calculation before he knows the answer. Now, for the people in that model or calculation, it's never clear if they're real or just the model. So that's us again. So yeah, God might not know where the universe ends up when he started it, and we don't know which version we are.
Omniscience != Determinism.
If you did have to calculate it, you wouldn't be omniscient.
Take the stonelayer, he isn't omniscient, he merely knows everything that is happening in the present, and given enough time, can model the future.
He punished humans with 4000 (according to the bible) years of original sin and kicked us out of the garden of eden, for something that he knew would happen and caused to happen by his inaction.That's incredibly evil.Or he could let us live without knowledge and like animals. I don't know which is evil.
God is magic, so for the most part the rules of the universe don't apply to him. Like the second law of thermodynamics which he violated or the law of conservation of energy (making a burning bush which didn't get consumed in a fire), or the law of conservation of mass (making things out of nothing, and a couple of the miracles jesus did).I can disprove omniscience in one simple step: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle :PI thought that only applied in an open system, like say, every single point in our universe, but were you to exist outside of the universe, you could treat the universe as a closed system.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 30, 2011, 09:24:04 pm
Post by: Andir on January 30, 2011, 10:26:06 pm
I am puzzled how some can say that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet somehow doesn't know what we would do? If he -doesn't- know everything about everything, past, present and future then that means he doesn't fit the bill as all-knowing. Instead, just lots-knowing.Apparently, he's also omni-ignorant.
Post by: G-Flex on January 30, 2011, 10:58:40 pm
it is impossible for both him being omniscient and free will to existAh, but how would he "know" the future? God is a black box, in that aspect. Take the stonelayer from xkcd (http://xkcd.com/505/), he knows all there is to know in the universe, but he has to model it first to see it happen. He is omnipotent and omniscient, and yet he has to do the whole calculation before he knows the answer. Now, for the people in that model or calculation, it's never clear if they're real or just the model. So that's us again. So yeah, God might not know where the universe ends up when he started it, and we don't know which version we are.
Omniscience != Determinism.
I hate to burst your bubble, but almost no Christian denomination pictures God like that. The most popular image of God I know of is the "eternal moment" variety, where he exists outside of time in general and isn't subject to it the way we are. In other words, God doesn't have to wait around to see what happens. That, and most Christians' idea of omniscience implies (if they don't explicitly state) that God does know the future.
Post by: Farmerbob on January 30, 2011, 11:34:52 pm
Again, I bring up human childrearing. as a parent you cannot protect your children from everything. You know without any doubt that they are going to be hurt.
For example. Are you being cruel by buying your child a bike? You know that when the training wheels come off, they are certainly going to fall at least a few times. But you accept this, knowing that a skinned knee or elbow, maybe even a broken bone might be the result of your gift of the bike. Similarly, if the Abrahamic god considers itself to be a father figure to humanity, then it is the responsibility of the Abrahamic god to allow us to grow as a race.
Almost everyone knows at least one or two people that were or are spoiled completely rotten. Imagine an entire race of humans with that attitude looking to the Abrahamic god for their daily needs. If the Abrahamic god prevented humans from experiencing trajedy, we would not grow as a race, or as individuals.
Post by: Max White on January 30, 2011, 11:38:57 pm
~Snip~Fun fact: Not all metaphores are true.
A parent may be forced to accept the mistakes a child will make, because both the cild and the parent will age, no matter what the parent does. So the parent may decide that some lessons are best learnt the hard way in order to better prepair the child for the illusive 'real world'.
God, however, as far as any bible storys tell, was not forced to accept such a reality, but rather made it out of spite for the actions of the child.
Post by: lemon10 on January 31, 2011, 12:37:44 am
So much of the argument here is coming from people that think it would be cruel or heartless for the Abrahamic god to know what Adam and Eve would do, and yet let them do it anyway even facilitating to provide the setting necessary for it to happen.No, your not cruel by buying your child a bike, even if they get hurt. You would be cruel if you told your kid not to fall off, and he fell off anyways (even though its his first time) so you beat him and abandone him by the side of the road.
Again, I bring up human childrearing. as a parent you cannot protect your children from everything. You know without any doubt that they are going to be hurt.
For example. Are you being cruel by buying your child a bike? You know that when the training wheels come off, they are certainly going to fall at least a few times. But you accept this, knowing that a skinned knee or elbow, maybe even a broken bone might be the result of your gift of the bike. Similarly, if the Abrahamic god considers itself to be a father figure to humanity, then it is the responsibility of the Abrahamic god to allow us to grow as a race.
Almost everyone knows at least one or two people that were or are spoiled completely rotten. Imagine an entire race of humans with that attitude looking to the Abrahamic god for their daily needs. If the Abrahamic god prevented humans from experiencing trajedy, we would not grow as a race, or as individuals.
The problem is the huge disproportionate punishment that the abrahamic god inflicted on humanity, not the fact that he knew that they were going to eat from the tree of knowledge.
And sure maybe tragedy is necessary, but i don't see how original sin makes people grow as individuals (besides the eternity in hell i suppose).
Post by: Sergius on January 31, 2011, 12:42:47 am
I am puzzled how some can say that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet somehow doesn't know what we would do? If he -doesn't- know everything about everything, past, present and future then that means he doesn't fit the bill as all-knowing. Instead, just lots-knowing.Apparently, he's also omni-ignorant.
Demon Cat: Hello, Frank the human boy.
Finn: (GASP!) How did you almost know my name?!
Demon Cat: I have approximate knowledge of many things!
Post by: FuzzyZergling on January 31, 2011, 01:53:21 am
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.
Post by: lemon10 on January 31, 2011, 02:15:22 am
Technically, God has never sent anyone to hell at all.
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.
Looking on the wikipedia, i found this
Quote from: Hell in the New Testament
The most common New Testament term translated as "hell" is γέεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. Apart from one use in James 3:6, this term is found exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[18][19][20] Gehenna is most frequently described as a place of fiery torment (e.g. Matthew 5:22, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-49) although other passages mention darkness and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (e.g. Matthew 8:12; 22:13).[19]That seems to mesh with the "firery hell" theme that was popular in the middle ages. So it seems that hell isn't just the absence of god.
Apart from the use of the term gehenna (translated as "hell" in all English translations of the bible), the Johannine writings refer to the destiny of the wicked in terms of "perishing", "death" and "condemnation" or "judgment". St. Paul speaks of "wrath" and "everlasting destruction" (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including "raging fire" (Hebrews 10:27), "destruction" (2 Peter 3:7), "eternal fire" (Jude 7) and "blackest darkness" (Jude 13). The Book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where "the devil, the beast, and false prophets" will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11).[21]
The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the abode of the dead (e.g. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13).[5] Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous.[5][21] In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead.
EDIT: i thought that jesus dying on the cross erased original sin, looking at the wikipedia article that might not be the case/ might be wrong. Could someone give me a link/quote saying otherwise (or confirm that jesus dying didn't erase original sin)?
Post by: Willfor on January 31, 2011, 02:20:50 am
Technically, God has never sent anyone to hell at all.That is definitely one of the theological division points. The literal interpretation of hell's fire is just the most known because its proponents are the loudest. There are even some who don't even believe hell is a permanent place of punishment, but a temporary refining fire.
Hell is mearly the absence of God, so he is not sending you somewhere, just not letting you in because he can't stand your imperfection.
Or at least, that is how I enterpret what I heard when I went to church.
That seems to mesh with the "firery hell" theme that was popular in the middle ages. So it seems that hell isn't just the absence of god.It's pretty awesome that Christians all believe the same thing and that there are absolutely no conflicting views on the subject itself from within the many hundreds of branches. :)
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 02:24:07 am
That's pretty poor parenting by most standards.
Humanity is extremely imperfect, but it does seem strange to create us that way then shun us for that very attribute.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 02:27:02 am
That is definitely one of the theological division points. The literal interpretation of hell's fire is just the most known because its proponents are the loudest. There are even some who don't even believe hell is a permanent place of punishment, but a temporary refining fire.Back, when I was a slightly more beleiving person then I am now, I always held the beleif that god wouldn't just let people to burn, and if you repent in hell, you still get into heaven. I then continued to reason that I, as a mortal man, may very well come to this earler conculsion on the basis that it was a free pass out of hell, something rather desirabe. I then reasoned that by questioning my own conculsions, I must be a good enough person to not be so selfish in my interpratation of hell. I then continued to reason that I may just think that way because it gives my free pass back to me.
Then I turned agnostic, and my thought process got a lot less recurcive.
Post by: Willfor on January 31, 2011, 02:33:05 am
Back, when I was a slightly more beleiving person then I am now, I always held the beleif that god wouldn't just let people to burn, and if you repent in hell, you still get into heaven. I then continued to reason that I, as a mortal man, may very well come to this earler conculsion on the basis that it was a free pass out of hell, something rather desirabe. I then reasoned that by questioning my own conculsions, I must be a good enough person to not be so selfish in my interpratation of hell. I then continued to reason that I may just think that way because it gives my free pass back to me.And then without the proper recursive algorithms your program crashed when it couldn't access memory at the correct point, and your brain segfaulted.
Then I turned agnostic, and my thought process got a lot less recurcive.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 02:35:53 am
*Sob*
I miss you scruffy logic!
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 02:38:47 am
*Imagines the statue of The Thinker, with a big busy beard*
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 02:39:18 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 03:40:25 am
(Egyptian and Mesopotamian also acceptable, I guess)
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 04:23:05 am
I am puzzled how some can say that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and yet somehow doesn't know what we would do? If he -doesn't- know everything about everything, past, present and future then that means he doesn't fit the bill as all-knowing. Instead, just lots-knowing.
He would know the future because he is omniscient. omniscience means he knows everything, all the time, and since the future is part of everything, he would know the future without having to calculate it.You misunderstand "Everything" and "Time". Since both the stonelayers' timeline and his world are completely undetectable to us, he is essentially out of our time and dimension (which is merely a simulation anyway). If he wishes, he can stop our universe, make a new one to see what happens next, and then continue with ours, and we wouldn't miss a picosecond. Essentially, he'll know in an instant what will happen to us, but maybe we're not the real, first people but the model he just started, in which case he won't know what will happen to us, but there's no way of telling.
If you did have to calculate it, you wouldn't be omniscient.
Take the stonelayer, he isn't omniscient, he merely knows everything that is happening in the present, and given enough time, can model the future.
Omniscience, omnipotence and time relate only to this universe.
The stonelayer is even compatible with our Abrahamic God. He can make an avatar with a long beard in the sky if he wants to. Including souls, heaven, and who knows what else. God is the ultimate black box, you can't possibly try to reverse engineer that. (Why do people keep trying?)
That's pretty poor parenting by most standards.Not really. To you, tragedy is war, murder, torture. To my 2 yr old it's not being allowed to watch Dora on TV. Tragedy is entirely subjective, and "punishment" is almost always too harsh, in the view of the punishee.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 04:45:56 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 31, 2011, 04:47:09 am
I somehow doubt that God allows all the pain, suffering, strife and even the eternal damnation of billions of humans just to make humanity more well-rounded people by allowing them to experience tragedy.
That's pretty poor parenting by most standards.
Humanity is extremely imperfect, but it does seem strange to create us that way then shun us for that very attribute.
Why do you doubt this? Do you believe you can think like a omniscient and omnipotent being? I've never tried to raise a RACE, so I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I'd guess than an omniscient god should nkow.
As far as shunning goes, according to most of the Abrahamic religions, their god never shuns humans, only humans shun their god.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:00:13 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 31, 2011, 05:01:59 am
That's fine and all, but what makes it any more than speculation?
Heh, either believing or disbelieving in omniscient, omnipotent deities is speculation without proof. If the supposed god chooses to make themself known, then the believer can be proven right. The Atheist can never be proven right.
The Agnostic IS right, because they know we cannot really know at this time.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:03:00 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:04:19 am
Because that means that all divine scriptures and messages are null.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:04:55 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:06:25 am
Post by: Farmerbob on January 31, 2011, 05:07:09 am
Are you implying that no god ever never made itself known?
Because that means that all divine scriptures and messages are null.
If the Abrahamic god ever actually was as active in the world as the religious literature indicates, he certainly isn't any longer. At least not in a way we can detect.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:08:41 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:12:12 am
So did a god make itself known or not?Your so totaly fishing for a 'no, he nevr made himself known!'
I can smell that you have an argument lined up and ready, and you want nothing more then to use it, so I feel I must break my more neutural stance and say no, god has never made any presense known post creation.
Go on, you know you want to.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:13:01 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:13:31 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:15:34 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:15:50 am
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 05:16:21 am
That's fine and all, but what makes it any more than speculation?Nothing. It is merely speculation, but it's also a way to show that there is nothing but speculation in that area, as it is unknowable. So any "logic" on free will, God's motivations, or his omnipotence/presence/science outside our universe is mere speculation and can no way determine whether God is "good" or "evil", or if he really is who other people say he is (there's many versions of God even within Christianity).
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:21:03 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:22:35 am
What about the presence of gods inside this universe?Never happened, no way, not once. He didn't move a single bosen.
:D
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 05:24:41 am
What about the presence of gods inside this universe?That would probably mean no "outside of time", and no omnipotence. Then it's just a matter of drawing the line of godhood somewhere, in which case it's even an attainable status for mankind.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:27:43 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:29:48 am
But what about all those bits where gods and other such powers directly interact with the world, even walk about and talk to people? There are historical accounts of such things occurring, in just about every culture and from every time period, right up to the modern day.Coincidence. Hallucinations. Delusions. Straight out lies.
Post by: Shades on January 31, 2011, 05:31:36 am
Because that means that all divine scriptures and messages are null.
Depends, some of the ideas in some of the various books are good, and well written from people that have considered the moral grounds. But yes it's all written by people at some point in the past.
Of course I say they are good, but I've only read modern translations, which we know differ considerably to the originals, so maybe the good ideas come from the translators. Not that it makes much difference either way.
But what about all those bits where gods and other such powers directly interact with the world, even walk about and talk to people? There are historical accounts of such things occurring, in just about every culture and from every time period, right up to the modern day.
There aren't any historical accounts, plenty of myth and stories of course but we've all seen how things that are clearly untrue become 'common knowledge'
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 05:36:20 am
Coincidence. Hallucinations. Delusions. Straight out lies.How solipsist of you. That's a whole lot of lies and trippin' going on there.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:42:27 am
Next thing you know you'll be saying that the ancient polytheistic Canaanite pantheon was manipulated into monotheism by priests of the local war god in order to grow nationalism and quash rival religious and political factions.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 05:45:55 am
I think Shade-o wants somebody to say some specific phrase, so he can counter with a prepaired argument. As such I am trying to say what he wants me to say so he can say what he wants to say.Coincidence. Hallucinations. Delusions. Straight out lies.How solipsist of you. That's a whole lot of lies and trippin' going on there.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 05:47:44 am
Oh come on, this is silly.
Next thing you know you'll be saying that the ancient polytheistic Canaanite pantheon was manipulated into monotheism by priests of the local war god in order to grow nationalism and quash rival religious and political factions.
Ummmmm... That sort of thing happened a lot back then.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 05:50:16 am
Secondly, why would an omniscient being of unlimited power and intelligence not know what would happen, even if we were a secondary model? That makes no sense.
By "Everything", I'm pretty sure I mean -everything-. As in, all things past, present and future in all possible dimensions, timelines, creations and possibilities, be they Prime creation or secondary model. Without exception, ever. Anything less is not all-seeing or all-knowing, because then you're not 'seeing everything' and 'knowing everything'.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 05:52:10 am
Oh come on, this is silly.
Next thing you know you'll be saying that the ancient polytheistic Canaanite pantheon was manipulated into monotheism by priests of the local war god in order to grow nationalism and quash rival religious and political factions.
Ummmmm... That sort of thing happened a lot back then.
Good thing none of those shambling patchwork zombie religions never became popular.
Post by: Shades on January 31, 2011, 05:53:00 am
Next thing you know you'll be saying that the ancient polytheistic Canaanite pantheon was manipulated into monotheism by priests of the local war god in order to grow nationalism and quash rival religious and political factions.
Actually one priest, called bob, a very persuasive guy that one.
Besides which did they actually convert, I thought they had the whole worship one god, acknowledge others thing going on. I admit to my knowledge of the time period to be limited.
I -really- hope nobody actually thinks that being damned to Hell is only 'subjectively' a harsh punishment for eating an apple, or comparable to not being able to watch Dora on TV.
Of course it's harsh, that is the point. Ideally you want your followers to trust what you tell them and not think for themselves and overly excessive punishments is the way to achieve that, eventually you'll breed those that think themselves out. Drones are very useful as a workforce.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 05:53:23 am
Oh come on, this is silly.
Next thing you know you'll be saying that the ancient polytheistic Canaanite pantheon was manipulated into monotheism by priests of the local war god in order to grow nationalism and quash rival religious and political factions.
Ummmmm... That sort of thing happened a lot back then.
Good thing none of those shambling patchwork zombie religions never became popular.
Lol, indeed.
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 06:03:31 am
I think Shade-o wants somebody to say some specific phrase, so he can counter with a prepaired argument. As such I am trying to say what he wants me to say so he can say what he wants to say.How nice of you :)
I do the exact opposite, all the time, just to frustrate childish inquiries. I wonder what Jesus would've done.
I -really- hope nobody actually thinks that being damned to Hell is only 'subjectively' a harsh punishment for eating an apple, or comparable to not being able to watch Dora on TV.You don't remember being 2 yrs old. Point is that people suffering in Hell would say: "War, murder, rape, torture? You call that stuff tragedy? Hahahaha!"
Although they probably wouldn't really be laughing at all.
And then there may be even worse stuff than eternal Hell, you (or they) just can't imagine it. It's all just another step up.
Quote
Secondly, why would an omniscient being of unlimited power and intelligence not know what would happen, even if we were a secondary model? That makes no sense.That's an unworkable definition, let me show you:
By "Everything", I'm pretty sure I mean -everything-. As in, all things past, present and future in all possible dimensions, timelines, creations and possibilities, be they Prime creation or secondary model. Without exception, ever. Anything less is not all-seeing or all-knowing, because then you're not 'seeing everything' and 'knowing everything'.
Then you include everything you don't know exists into "everything", up to and including "nothing" and all hypothetical worlds, creatures, and invisible pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows. Including something outside of everything, which is then included into everything, ad infinitum. There's no finite boundary on where it ends.
God can do that. How about our universe is simulated by a stonelayer who is simulated by a computer who is simulated in the mind of a fishbeast who is simulated in the dream of a giant turtle etc ad inifitum, and we call that whole infinite stack of simulations "God"? To have presicence, at any level, it can simulate a model, or the level above can let his model simulate a model. There's no finite boundary where it stops or starts knowing everything. Because as soon as one level know everything about all levels below, it does not know about his own level. There's however a level above who does.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:06:07 am
How nice of you :)
<3 u 2 Siquo.
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 06:08:57 am
d'awww :)How nice of you :)
<3 u 2 Siquo.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:12:00 am
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 06:13:40 am
As I said before though, yeah. Knowing everything means knowing everything. I don't see how the lack of finite boundries stops a being of infinite wisdom, power and intelligence from knowing all. Mind-bending and impossible to a human, but probably easy for such a being.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:14:20 am
So God has a God who watches over Him? So on and so on, ad infinitum. It's all just another step up.And he shall be known as 'super god'!
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:19:40 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 06:19:54 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:21:13 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 06:24:22 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:25:19 am
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 06:25:34 am
Super god, rules of all gods. Exept the god above him, super-duper god, but he is some what of a prick.Luckily he's kept in check by Super-Duper-with-a-cherry-on-top God, and she's pretty relaxed.
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:26:52 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:28:18 am
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 06:29:28 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:32:30 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:33:36 am
In the begining, there was super-duper-with-a-cherry-on-top God, and she was sitting back relaxing in her office, when her boss, super-duper-with-a-cherry-on-top-and-sprinkles God comes up to her, and he was all like 'We need to talk in my office' and she was all like 'Shit! I'm going to get fired for slacking off!'
So in super-duper-with-a-cherry-on-top-and-sprinkles God's office, he was all like 'So we figure you have a large workload, and your not getting it all done!' and she was like 'Here it comes' and he was like 'So we hired you a secutary! Meet super-duper god!' and she was all like 'Score!'
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:34:55 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:36:02 am
That does not answer my vital question. Does she have a good rack?What are you, 16? Grow some respect! She is a freeking super-duper-with-a-cherry-on-top god. If you can't respect her, how can you ever expect to respect any mortal woman?
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:38:43 am
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 06:41:46 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:43:07 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:44:29 am
Actually I am sixteen. Awesome tits take up 99% of my brain's processing power.
As you grow up, you will come to realise two things.
The first is that large organs on the front of a woman may be fun to play with for a while, but you get over them. Soon you need something more complex to occupy your mind, and thats when personality comes into play, and you soon forget about your large fleshy toys.
The second is that the larger they are, the more they sag, therefor smaller, to a reasonable degree, is more attractive once they take their bra off.
The first lesson is significantly more important.
Lol. Don't forget the next one in line, Mega-super-duper-God-with-a-cherry-on-top-and-sprinkles.And then comes pirate god.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 06:46:19 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:48:16 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:50:33 am
P.S. I said great tits. Not big tits. Not huge tits. AWESOME TITS!!!
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:52:49 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:54:52 am
(And I'm joking around a little.)
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:57:16 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 06:58:06 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 06:59:01 am
Wait, on topic... Something about god.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 06:59:44 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 07:00:28 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:01:08 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 07:01:38 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:03:06 am
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 07:04:15 am
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 07:05:35 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:05:54 am
I only talk like this on the internet. The internet is my release valve. Bonus points if you can find the forum I vent my anger on.I'm placing my bet on the runescape forums.
Post by: GamerKnight on January 31, 2011, 07:07:28 am
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 07:10:20 am
Let us all bow our head in worship for the god that stops girls from seeing what jerks guys can be.Girls often like jerks. Going crazy over boobies can but often won't decrease your chance of success in groping aforementioned convex surfaces.
Speaking of which, how can you not see the beauty of God in boobs? Clearly God must exist.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 07:11:49 am
Now, something about God... hmm...
Uhm. Think the world will end in 2012?
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:15:13 am
*Waves to GamerKnight*
Now, something about God... hmm...
Uhm. Think the world will end in 2012?
What sort of partys have you been going to? I want in. All the girls I know have gotten past the 'Falls for the jerk' stage of their lives, in favor of guys that act older then they are. Then again most of the girls I know are art students, so there is some bias in the sample group.
And realy, the devine work of god shows in all creatures on earth, especialy those that are pleasing to the eye, or the palette.
*Waves to GamerKnight*
Now, something about God... hmm...
Uhm. Think the world will end in 2012?
I sort of hope so, but in an interesting way. That would be fun.
Post by: Shade-o on January 31, 2011, 07:16:00 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:17:07 am
It does coincide with the US presidential elections. Other than Sarah Palin winning, I can't see any likely cause.The hell is up with her anyway? She is dumb as mud, so why does she have any popularity?
Post by: Siquo on January 31, 2011, 07:21:32 am
especialy those that are pleasing to the eye, or the palette.Or both.
She is dumb as mud, so why does she have any popularity?
Because he represents "the people" in both idea and ability?
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:23:19 am
So much inuendo, so little ways to express laughter.See aboveI did not just say that.
Post by: Shambling Zombie on January 31, 2011, 07:23:36 am
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2011, 07:26:21 am
Post by: CoughDrop on January 31, 2011, 09:01:48 am
It does coincide with the US presidential elections. Other than Sarah Palin winning, I can't see any likely cause.The hell is up with her anyway? She is dumb as mud, so why does she have any popularity?
I don't know, I just want to kill myself when I see all the dumb-ass politicians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_FB6-gGZs&feature=channel) in the positions that they're in. I've pretty much given up all hope for the US... Want to move to Poland, I've heard that's a great place to live nowadays.
Post by: Sergius on January 31, 2011, 10:03:30 am
I wonder what god looks like... (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107286-Artist-Turns-All-493-Pokemon-Into-Cosplaying-Girls)
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa222/Setian_Sins/God.jpg)
Post by: Bauglir on January 31, 2011, 10:16:02 am
EDIT: Unlocked. Replaced one paragraph in the OP. You can talk about things like Evolution vs Creationism, if you'd like, but keep it civil and try to avoid going too far into related tangents. For more detailed instructions, read the paragraph following the now-struck-through paragraph in the OP.
Post by: Euld on August 26, 2011, 04:00:10 pm
Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood? That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't... The History Channel did this often >_o
Not sure if a detailed list is possible; there's just too many of them, heh. It became evident even long ago, without the scientific analysis processes and tools.That pretty much answered my question :)
Even pre-enlightenment era:Quote from: Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks...."
The most obvious reason is arrangement. If it was one big event in which everything died, it would be more or less one big mess of things with no particular arrangement; rabbits, velociraptors, and trilobites corpses all clumped together. But instead, we see the very distinct evolutionary history which appears very different, with the clear progression of organisms going deeper in the rock.
There's radiometric dating which, again, is altered by the YEC alternate science (or more specifically, they believe nuclear decay rates have dramatically decreased over time). Radiometric dating backs up the arrangements of progression previously seen, as well as showing a vast difference in time scales.
The formation of the quantity of fossil fuels we have also takes much longer than the asserted time. This particular one is either countered with more bad YEC alternate science or explained as 'God put it there as a natural resource for us.' The 'God dunnit' excuse is much more common here than the fossils example, as fossil fuels do have a practical use, whereas with fossils you're stuck precariously close to being between your pure deity trying to trick you or your devil who only has the power to corrupt actually creating things.
I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of others, but those are some of the most obvious examples.
As for the alternate YEC version of science, that originates from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy (summary)
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_document (original document)
It's pretty insidious. Their goals, from the horse's mouth are:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Or in summary, they are setting out with aims no less than the utter destruction of science followed by replacing it with far-right Christian doctrine.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 26, 2011, 10:34:04 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 26, 2011, 10:37:18 pm
For 60 pages.
Post by: Bauglir on August 26, 2011, 10:43:12 pm
EDIT: Changed the re-open time. Locking for 3 days without explicit warning is maybe overkill, but seriously, I am not going to tolerate this derail happening again, and if the thread has to die for that to happen then we weren't really going to handle this thread being open anyway.
Post by: Bauglir on August 27, 2011, 11:32:49 am
Quote
Okay, I'm stealing some conflict-handling rules.
If the rules in this OP are violated, or I decide a conversation has become too serious a derail, I'll first post a warning. In the case of derails, I'll try to post two; one an unofficial "hey, guys, let's bring this to a close, okay", the second an official "We're not going to be talking about this anymore" message. Only the official warning will use red text.
If the problem continues, I will then lock the thread for 3 days. I will explicitly state that this is the case in the warning.
If, after the thread is opened, the problem still persists, I will repeat locks until it either stops or I get tired of opening the thread. If there's a specific person I believe is responsible, I will instead simply report the poster in question and post a warning telling people not to respond; any responses will result in a lock for 3 days, with no warnings. I recommend you use the ignore functionality if you have to (we have that, right?). If moderator action of any kind is taken, you're not to discuss it in this thread - we're not a thread for celebrating or lamenting bans or mutes. Violation of this rule will result in lock for 3 days, with no warnings.
When a derail occurs, I'll add it to the second post and note it as such. Posters are not to bring up the topic again without first PMing me - if you can convince me that you have a rational argument that's new to the discussion, which you think we can discuss civilly, then you can make the actual post. I'm sorry to make this necessary. I'll follow the same procedure for derails above (starting with an informal warning, then an official one, then moving on to locks) if an old derail crops up again; I understand that new posters won't be familiar with the thread's history with these topics, so I don't want to be too draconian about it.
Finally, a specific note. Because of the problems that initially prompted me to add this whole new set of rules, I'm already in the third stage of dealing with a particular derail. That means that anybody posting about whether or not agnosticism is a subset of atheism, regardless of their position, warrants a thread lock. FarmerBob, specifically, warrants a report to the moderators if he makes a post about it, but no lock unless people respond to him. I would appreciate it if you did not.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 12:22:52 pm
By (apparently) intentionally not using the correct meaning of agnostic and atheist, despite having it pointed out clearly and obviously multiple times both in this thread and in PM's that agnosticism is only considered a subset of atheism by atheists or religious people with some sort of agenda (or by the uneducated), you bring into doubt your ability to act as a impartial moderator in any discussion about religion.
Sorry, I call it as I see it. The English language and hundreds of years of language use agrees with me, a bunch of fruity ivory tower thinkers agree with you.
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 27, 2011, 12:41:26 pm
Re: the topic at hand:
Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood? That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't... The History Channel did this often >_oLooking at this short conversation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU) between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay(a young Earth creationist), one can come to a conclusion that it would be imperative to assume that things worked differently in the past than they do now, for all the data regarding geological strata and radioactive dating to conform with the young Earth belief.
Post by: Bauglir on August 27, 2011, 12:43:11 pm
Let me be clear. You do not get to bring up an old argument, tell people who identify as atheists what they believe, call them loonies for it, argue that certain beliefs (which I happen to hold, by the way) are a sham aimed at misleading agnostics into siding with your stereotype of atheists, insist you're above the bickering, and then claim that your beliefs are being trod on and that your taking offense is why the conversation needs to change.
That's my final word. Drop it. You're not reported for this, nor am I locking the thread, because you didn't actually argue about the definitions directly and I'm trying to be understanding. But consider this avenue off-limits, as well.
Edit: In fact, when I say it's my final word, it extends beyond this thread. I won't continue to indulge this, even over PM. At least not today. Your PMs have failed to contain anything we didn't go over the last time this came up, and I'm tired of this. Maybe I'll read and reply later, but I promise nothing. My patience is exhausted.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 12:47:37 pm
Farmerbob, if you have a problem with the rules Bauglir is trying to maintain in his own thread, feel free to discuss the finer points of your disagreement with him via personal messaging system. I'm sure he'll indulge you. Posting your objections here inspite of the extremally visible calls not to do so anymore comes off quite clearly as egoistic and attention-starved.Already been tried, and after I repeatedly proved without any possible doubt that he is incorrect, he gives up trying to make me drink the Atheist coolaid, and instead threatens me with moderation.
Sorry if this irritates people, but It always irritates me when people try to lump me in with
Post by: Willfor on August 27, 2011, 12:49:24 pm
His question was already answered dude. His post was a massive "my question has just been greatly answered" post.Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood? That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't... The History Channel did this often >_oLooking at this short conversation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU) between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay(a young Earth creationist), one can come to a conclusion that it would be imperative to assume that things worked differently in the past than they do now, for all the data regarding geological strata and radioactive dating to conform with the young Earth belief.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 12:51:41 pm
Ugh. You're insisting that your definitions are the only acceptable ones and that any ideas allowed for by alternate terminology but not by yours must not exist (there's a PM conversation here, btw, so there's some context is missing). Standing up for your beliefs is admirable. Standing up for what you demand other people believe is not, and this is what you are doing when you insist that all atheists believe that there are no deities.
Let me be clear. You do not get to bring up an old argument, tell people who identify as atheists what they believe, call them loonies for it, argue that certain beliefs (which I happen to hold, by the way) are a sham aimed at misleading agnostics into siding with your stereotype of atheists, insist you're above the bickering, and then claim that your beliefs are being trod on and that your taking offense is why the conversation needs to change.
That's my final word. Drop it. You're not reported for this, nor am I locking the thread, because you didn't actually argue about the definitions directly and I'm trying to be understanding. But consider this avenue off-limits, as well.
Edit: In fact, when I say it's my final word, it extends beyond this thread. I won't continue to indulge this, even over PM. At least not today. Your PMs have failed to contain anything we didn't go over the last time this came up, and I'm tired of this. Maybe I'll read and reply later, but I promise nothing. My patience is exhausted.
Blue is not yellow. No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you. The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.
Post by: CoughDrop on August 27, 2011, 01:01:02 pm
Blue is not yellow. No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you. The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.
That's... not how it works. I can have butter, and I can have toast. I can then butter my toast to make it buttered toast.
Could you perhaps explain why you think Agnosticism and Atheism are so fundamentally different that they cannot be combined at all?
EDIT: Wait, who said agnostics had to be atheists, anyway?
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 01:11:39 pm
Blue is not yellow. No matter how many times you try to insist blue is yellow, I will defy you. The same with trying to say Agnostics are Atheists.
That's... not how it works. I can have butter, and I can have toast. I can then butter my toast to make it buttered toast.
Could you perhaps explain why you think Agnosticism and Atheism are so fundamentally different that they cannot be combined at all?
Atheist people believe without proof that there are no deities.
Religious people believe without proof in a deity or supernatural something or other
Agnostics refuse to believe either way until someone provides proof.
Irreligious people don't even know what religion is and have no understanding of what it means to believe in a deity or supernatural something or other. (children, brain damaged, aliens, whatever)
Each of these classifications have their own subsets. None of these four major groups shares any overlap when discussing belief. I tend to ignore the irreligious in arguments, because anyone capable of arguing about religion, is incapable of being irreligious.
*EDIT*
(Depending on what dictionary definitions you use, and how loosely you interpret them, you can make a case for combining Agnostics and Irreligious together, I suppose, but that's not the argument here. Agnostic vs Atheist is)
Post by: CoughDrop on August 27, 2011, 01:16:45 pm
...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.
EDIT: changes struck out and underlined.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 01:20:32 pm
So you've made a false dichotomy wherein anyone who is not agnostic is instantly gnostic.
...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.
Agnostic has absolutely no relation to the term gnostic, believe it or not :)
Definition of GNOSTICISM
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis
Post by: Willfor on August 27, 2011, 01:22:10 pm
adjective /ˈnästik/
1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge
2. Of or relating to Gnosticism
Post by: DrPoo on August 27, 2011, 01:22:34 pm
Recently i have been angered by people explicitly stating that god does not exist, i think that is straightforwardly stupid, no offense.
Nothing can really be proven, some people go with the scientific approach to everything and only beleive in what they think and see, i think that is ok.
Most religious people do not refuse science, some of us just dont beleive in what Darwin said a few hundreds of years ago. Eh i beleive in him.
Some atheist stereotype religious people as science refusing morons who run around trying to make everyone like them. Eh, i dont like that, as much as i dont like the usual atheist stereotype comparing god to santa. Christianity is not about following the bible as a law or reality, but more as guidelines and source of inspiration, since most of it is old and unclear.
And the most stupid thing i have heard from both Atheists and Theists is that they beleive Science and Religion contradicts each other, they do not do enough research and jugde things to be stupid ghost stories and stupid trends. This is what i call trend atheists and trendtheists. Because they only follow a trend, blindly.
I want to say so much right now but it gets stuck in my head.
I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?
And this is usually what i do to convince people not to "know" god does not exist, and that Science and Religion does to contradict each other, and it usually works:
Put yourself in the seat, shoes, whatever that dude/gal sits in/wears. You are making a world, wouldnt you think of tying some kind of logic together to make fun stuff happen? I mean, even flatulent toasters make some kind of sense. Sense is fun, so why not make sense of everything? Hell i even understand why he made us, so he could laugh at us completely misconcepting everything and failing all the time and ultimately fucking everything up. I think the universe is here, only for the laughs. And i try to make granddaddy failprogrammer a little bit proud by attempting to not be a fail piece of ruthless creativity, and that is why i am christain.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 01:35:09 pm
gnos·tic
adjective /ˈnästik/
1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge
2. Of or relating to Gnosticism
Where did that definition come from, doesn't match any that I can find in reliable places.
*Edit* found it. Oxford pocket dictionary. Now I need to clarify. Never seen that usage before.
Henry Huxley:
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
So yes, anyone who holds a position that cannot be demonstrated or proved is not Agnostic. You can use the term outside of religion, but it's uncommon.
Post by: Willfor on August 27, 2011, 01:41:42 pm
That came from a google search of "define: gnostic", but I knew the meaning he was using from my own experience with it. It's a separate term than gnosticism, and has been since it was originally a Greek word for knowledge. The fact that it is a rather archaic way to say it doesn't mean that CoughDrop was using it wrong. The word has been conflated with Gnosticism, but it exists as its own word.gnos·tic
adjective /ˈnästik/
1. Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge
2. Of or relating to Gnosticism
Where did that definition come from, doesn't match any that I can find in reliable places.
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 27, 2011, 01:43:42 pm
I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?I'll bite, because last time it was discussed was probably at least half a year ago, and nobody should be required to browse through hundreds of pages of arguments in all the "Atheism" threads there were, just to find the relevant discussion. So stay your hand if you were to scream bloody murder for having to watch the same old story retold again and again.
The difference in the religious and scientific views on the matter that you've mentioned, i.e.the begining of the universe, is that one can find certain clues in the world that seem to be pointing towards the Big Bang event(which is what you're referring to I think) and none supporting the hardline creationism - i.e. literally creation ex nihilo some few thousand years ago. As for the more moderate approach to creationism that you mention, i.e. some godly force creating, essentially, the Big Bang, it is less honest, and certainly less humble answer to the question of creation - where scientists readilly admit: "we think this is how it was back then, and we haven't got a clue what was before that", theists are somehow sure that they do know exactly where did everything come from - a stance most arrogant in my opininon.
Post by: DrPoo on August 27, 2011, 02:04:32 pm
I challenge atheists dedicated to science, they beleive in a singularity unfolding and creating the universe and the laws of physics, is this any more worse than some bored guy making shite out of clay and breathing bad breath through his nose wich stinks so much that the clay figures come to life? You beleive in invisible forces attracting matter, is little goblins pulling them with a sled buildt entirely out of fishsticks and candy any better? Hey i dont know, but such a singularity, why the hell would it fart out an entire universe for no raisins? Hell id give it a grape instead, no. I think it sounds quite fitting that some kind of god provoked the big bang, and can anybody deny that god thought of physics?I'll bite, because last time it was discussed was probably at least half a year ago, and nobody should be required to browse through hundreds of pages of arguments in all the "Atheism" threads there were, just to find the relevant discussion. So stay your hand if you were to scream bloody murder for having to watch the same old story retold again and again.
The difference in the religious and scientific views on the matter that you've mentioned, i.e.the begining of the universe, is that one can find certain clues in the world that seem to be pointing towards the Big Bang event(which is what you're referring to I think) and none supporting the hardline creationism - i.e. literally creation ex nihilo some few thousand years ago. As for the more moderate approach to creationism that you mention, i.e. some godly force creating, essentially, the Big Bang, it is less honest, and certainly less humble answer to the question of creation - where scientists readilly admit: "we think this is how it was back then, and we haven't got a clue what was before that", theists are somehow sure that they do know exactly where did everything come from - a stance most arrogant in my opininon.
In all respect, i stated that i dislike that kind of thing about "knowing" what i am trying to say is that nothing can be proved and therefore redicolous to discuss. Personal freedom allows us to beleive in green goblins pulling suns and shit or not if we want to..
Post by: Il Palazzo on August 27, 2011, 02:27:44 pm
This brings me back to the question you had asked previously, about the compatibility/incompatibility of science and religion - judging by your personal views on the matter we're just discussing, it would appear that your belief in a creator leads you to discrediting the science related to the realm of creation. You would be very unlikely to find yourself engaged in a scientific effort to explain the origins of the universe, as you appear to already know how it happened, or at least(and forgive me that I'm not sure which it is) that it is impossible, or meaningless to know that. Thus the answers provided by your belief system prevents you from seeking answers in a scientific fashion.
Post by: DrPoo on August 27, 2011, 03:00:48 pm
I am quite certain that some things are provable to the extent of being relatable to the obsarvations we can make about the world. There is great value in being able to admit what you don't know, or that what you know might turn out to be imprecise in the future. But I don't see equal value in insisting that you don't know even if there is some evidence staring you in the face, just for the sake of allowing yourself to equalize the disliked, if more likely answer with the less likely one, albeit preferred, on the grounds of both of them being supposedly beyond the realm of scrutiny.
This brings me back to the question you had asked previously, about the compatibility/incompatibility of science and religion - judging by your personal views on the matter we're just discussing, it would appear that your belief in a creator leads you to discrediting the science related to the realm of creation. You would be very unlikely to find yourself engaged in a scientific effort to explain the origins of the universe, as you appear to already know how it happened, or at least(and forgive me that I'm not sure which it is) that it is impossible, or meaningless to know that. Thus the answers provided by your belief system prevents you from seeking answers in a scientific fashion.
Im not a jew.
Eh, the difference between jews and christains is that we are free to ignore parts of the religion and bible, for example we are allowed to paint god, while jews arent.
Science and Religion are two completely different matters of one thing, philosophy, even logic is a philosophy.
I have been interested in science since i was a kid, and i use it regularily each day to jugde. But hell i pray to god when i do bad shit, and that is how i am.
I refuse neither the existence of god/god being existence itself, nor that there is some kind of "truth" in science. But saying this and that is false and only this is true is stupid, atleast that is what i think.
I was raised to not question god, i do at times but that is usually followed by a depression, i doubt science, at times, for the trend among scientists to jump at conclusions. But they are two completely different subjects, atleast to me.
I am just as skeptic as you are, i have just taken the freedom to beleive in a caring and loving god. And then comes the "but my life is shit and my ex-girlfriend got raped while in a psycho ward", and i answer with the question, Toady didnt add a "win game" button, did he? That would be pointless. I beleive God didnt give us cheats because he wanted us to appreciate
I respect your existence, just as much as i respect the existence of a sister or a god. Call me mad and stupid for what i beleive in, but that is not going to change my opinions. I am convinced but i do not know.
Edit2: Reread your reply, and i just say thanks for that kind of respect you gave to my personal beleifs.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 03:21:20 pm
So you've made a false dichotomy wherein anyone whoisdoes not define them self as agnostic is instantly gnostic.
...I think I'm done here - both for the sake of my sanity and for keeping this discussion from continuing any further.
EDIT: changes struck out and underlined.
Re-responding.
If you have all of the beliefs of an Agnostic person and don't even know it because you've been told wrongly that you are Atheist, then you are still an Agnostic. What you call yourself isn't necessarily what you are. Even if you know no better. I know a lot of people who have been unfortunate enough to have been confused in that way. If he's being honest in his conversations with me, the OP is one of them, but doesn't realize it yet.
As a pseudo-similar scenario, I also know a few people who were adopted, and didn't know it until they were adults. That doesn't change who their biological parents are. What you are isn't defined by your perception of reality, it's defined by actual reality.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 03:37:05 pm
I am quite certain that some things are provable to the extent of being relatable to the obsarvations we can make about the world. There is great value in being able to admit what you don't know, or that what you know might turn out to be imprecise in the future. But I don't see equal value in insisting that you don't know even if there is some evidence staring you in the face, just for the sake of allowing yourself to equalize the disliked, if more likely answer with the less likely one, albeit preferred, on the grounds of both of them being supposedly beyond the realm of scrutiny.
This brings me back to the question you had asked previously, about the compatibility/incompatibility of science and religion - judging by your personal views on the matter we're just discussing, it would appear that your belief in a creator leads you to discrediting the science related to the realm of creation. You would be very unlikely to find yourself engaged in a scientific effort to explain the origins of the universe, as you appear to already know how it happened, or at least(and forgive me that I'm not sure which it is) that it is impossible, or meaningless to know that. Thus the answers provided by your belief system prevents you from seeking answers in a scientific fashion.
From my point of view, it's just as possible that the big bang occurred without divine intervention and nature took it's course as it is that God created the universe, and a history of that universe that included the big bang.
Do I believe that one is more likely than the other? Yes. Do I know which is the reality? No.
I tend to gravitate towards science based reasoning, but I also never forget that if there is a supernatural being of immense power and knowledge out there, it's quite possibly going to be capable of editing time and energy directly. Such a being could actually create reality, including the history of said reality. One day we might be able to detect the residual effects of godly actions, if there is a god. If/when that occurs, then we'll certainly have many fewer Agnostics in the world.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2011, 03:48:04 pm
I am just as skeptic as you are, i have just taken the freedom to beleive in a caring and loving god. And then comes the "but my life is shit and my ex-girlfriend got raped while in a psycho ward", and i answer with the question, Toady didnt add a "win game" button, did he? That would be pointless. I beleive God didnt give us cheats because he wanted us to appreciateThere is a significant difference between allowing challenge in life and allowing the sort of psychopathic evil that goes on in our world on a daily basis. You can't really appreciate life if, for example, you are starving to death because the local military junta stole all your food, enslaved your mother, shot your father, and threw you down a pit to die. In the situation of the world we have right now, the best possible reality for us is that there is no god, because if there is, it is either content to watch us suffer (thus making it apathetic or malicious, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion) or unable to do anything about it (and thus too weak to use its influence on the world, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion).it.life.
Post by: DrPoo on August 27, 2011, 03:52:41 pm
I am just as skeptic as you are, i have just taken the freedom to beleive in a caring and loving god. And then comes the "but my life is shit and my ex-girlfriend got raped while in a psycho ward", and i answer with the question, Toady didnt add a "win game" button, did he? That would be pointless. I beleive God didnt give us cheats because he wanted us to appreciateThere is a significant difference between allowing challenge in life and allowing the sort of psychopathic evil that goes on in our world on a daily basis. You can't really appreciate life if, for example, you are starving to death because the local military junta stole all your food, enslaved your mother, shot your father, and threw you down a pit to die. In the situation of the world we have right now, the best possible reality for us is that there is no god, because if there is, it is either content to watch us suffer (thus making it apathetic or malicious, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion) or unable to do anything about it (and thus too weak to use its influence on the world, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion).it.life.
Eh, i dont know. I am too tired to wrap my mind around that right now.
But i experienced what i described myself, and i still love my god.
So to avoid saying stupid shit that would put me or my religion in a bad(der) light, i say good night from now, sleep well.
Post by: Farmerbob on August 27, 2011, 04:27:06 pm
I am just as skeptic as you are, i have just taken the freedom to beleive in a caring and loving god. And then comes the "but my life is shit and my ex-girlfriend got raped while in a psycho ward", and i answer with the question, Toady didnt add a "win game" button, did he? That would be pointless. I beleive God didnt give us cheats because he wanted us to appreciateThere is a significant difference between allowing challenge in life and allowing the sort of psychopathic evil that goes on in our world on a daily basis. You can't really appreciate life if, for example, you are starving to death because the local military junta stole all your food, enslaved your mother, shot your father, and threw you down a pit to die. In the situation of the world we have right now, the best possible reality for us is that there is no god, because if there is, it is either content to watch us suffer (thus making it apathetic or malicious, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion) or unable to do anything about it (and thus too weak to use its influence on the world, and thus unworthy of worship and devotion).it.life.
If there is a deity & an infinite afterlife, then our time spent on Earth compared to the duration of an immortal soul is less than nothing. We, as humans, allow our loved ones to experience pain now and then, or they won't grow. Since we don't know if there is a soul or not, (for sure), we can't say what suffering in life might do for the soul. Perhaps a painful life equates to a more potent soul in the afterlife. Perhaps that god watches the victims of that Junta and winces inside, but refuses to act and lets it all happen because it will make the victim a better soul. I don't know, you don't know. Unless some deity decides to show up and tell us in no uncertain terms, we will almost certainly never know.
Post by: Max White on August 27, 2011, 04:30:26 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 27, 2011, 04:51:46 pm
Why was this necro'd? Whyyyyyy?
Starting to wonder that myself. Fortunately (or unfortunately, as the case may be), in accordance with the new rules I posted, I have to lock this now. See you on Tuesday.
Post by: Toady One on August 27, 2011, 10:53:14 pm