Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

There's not really a whole lot of point in discussing the the potential aspects of nonexistant deities. Because they kind of don't exist.

[Siquo]

That's why we're discussing the potential aspects of existent deities. 

[Micro102]

What I said wasn't false, just because some religions believes in all gods, doesn't mean that you can believe in all gods. For example, you cannot believe in the Cristian god because the bible that he wrote (or helped write) says that he is the only god. Believing in him and other gods at the same time would be an oxymoron or a completely different religion.

[Siquo]

What I said wasn't false, just because some religions believes in all gods, doesn't mean that you can believe in all gods. For example, you cannot believe in the Cristian god because the bible that he wrote (or helped write) says that he is the only god. Believing in him and other gods at the same time would be an oxymoron or a completely different religion.

What I mean is, the Romans, for example, didn't mind you believing in Thor, or Zeus, as long as you also worshiped Jupiter. There was space there for multiple pantheons to coexist.

The Jews and later the Christians refused, claiming that their God was the only one that actually existed. That concept was completely alien to them, at the time.

[Micro102]

So? What did they do? Did anyone also believe in the christian god? But then that wouldn't be Christianity anymore, it would be a religion that depicted the christian god as a liar. Or some other form of story.

[MrWiggles]

Its sorta depends on you take the wording in the old testament.

In most versions of the commandments there is wording to the affect of 'You shall have none other before me. For I am the one true god.'

This can be read as there our other gods (or god like beings), and they are false. This can speak to other religions. In Islam, this is taken as warning about the plethora of Djins that exist and are as powerful as God but are evil creatures.

[Micro102]

But there are more then one religions like that, you cannot follow them all without altering at least one.

[MrWiggles]

But there are more then one religions like that, you cannot follow them all without altering at least one.

Yep.

Either one is correct or the other are wrong.

Or there all equal wrong.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Whee pulling up old stuff! (it's not technically necroposting...)

It is perfectly possible to be religious and not have a conflicting-with-science worldview.

I don't think so, since science frowns on believing things without evidence, and if religion were based on evidence it would be science. It's religion and faith precisely because there is no evidence.
Even granting that religion and science can in theory coexist without conflict for the sake of argument, though, I have yet to see a religion or a religious person that does.

Science relies on faith as well. Faith that you are interpreting your data correctly. Faith that other people's research (the stuff you're building off of) isn't complete fabrication. Faith that what you see is in fact what exists, even though you could be in a coma dreaming it all up. Science yes, can prove things in a unique way, but you cannot simply use it and claim to not need faith.

I believe I am in fact at the moment I type this up sitting at my chair with a laptop in front of me typing. I have no proof of this and who knows? We both might be two individuals randomly generated as completely self-aware artificial intelligences in a prodedurally-generated artificial world. We might exist only within someone else's dreams. In fact, I have no proof you exist. I might even be wrong.

However, I also believe that, since the atheist story of the universe's beginnings break every physical law I know, it may well be wrong.

I may be wrong in my Christian beliefs.

It's a matter of faith. Everything is.

[chaoticag]

Darned solipsists.

First off, there is an amount of faith in science, but only at the basic level, such as assuming the world we perceive is the only world worth caring about. Of course, we don't take the rest on faith, we constantly question it. Only after it has been questioned, time and time again, does it become a law, and even then the theory or law may still be wrong, but usually not drastically so. Science is about taking the faith out of the process.

Also, there is no atheistic story of the beginning of the universe, but there is a scientific one, and I'd like you to state what you believe it is, and which laws of physics it breaks.

Now, the things you say may be true, but you still need to support it, with evidence. Until you do, we'll assume otherwise. You made the claim that reality may be fiction, now support it with evidence.

[Siquo]

Science is not a belief per se. You can take a utilitarian view to science, and believe in science like you would believe in a hammer: it works for the purposes it was designed for. It's a tool.

It answers none of the questions of "why are we here", "what is my purpose", "what will happen to me after I die". Oh yes, Occams razor tells us none of those things exist, but there is no definite proof that they don't, and there's certainly a need in most humans to have an answer to those questions.

Then there are those who Believe in the Hammer; The Hammer Is The Answer To Everything.
That's how a lot of atheists sound to theists.

[Neruz]

We are here because our ancestors survived long enough to reproduce.
Our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce.
After i die, the electrical activity in my brain will cease and my body will decompose.


There we go, all three questions answered by 'science'.

[MrWiggles]

Why do solipsists even bother talking or debating? Isnt it just mental masturbation for'em?
Also what other stories to atheist share among each other?

Oo, We can share songs of the great Tribble Hunt. Come on, Neruz, start the first verse, and we can get a round going.

[Siquo]

We are here because our ancestors survived long enough to reproduce.
Our purpose is to survive long enough to reproduce.
After i die, the electrical activity in my brain will cease and my body will decompose.


There we go, all three questions answered by 'science'.

1. That's not a reason. We are here "because our parents didn't die" isn't an answer to why.
2. Is that our purpose? Science doesn't tell us that. It's something we do, that doesn't mean it's your purpose.
3. But where does your consciousness go? Does it go somewhere? Science still has no definite answer as to what consciousness is.

You still have a vague grasp of Science.

@MrWiggles: DarthCD is not a solipsist, as you can tell from his post. Neither am I. There's hardly any solipsist in this thread. Who do you mean?
If you mean solipsism as a skeptical hypothesis, it's funny that the so called "skeptical science lovers" can't defend their own beloved science against skepticism.

[Neruz]

1. That's not a reason. We are here "because our parents didn't die" isn't an answer to why.

"Why are the keys on the table?" "Because i put them there."
Sounds like a perfectly good reason to me.

2. Is that our purpose? Science doesn't tell us that. It's something we do, that doesn't mean it's your purpose.

I believe biological sciences and the studies of cells, to which Evolution is related, tells us that the purpose of life is to create more life. Certainly it sounds like a perfectly good purpose to me, and my mind and body certainly seem to be wired towards that assumption.

3. But where does your consciousness go? Does it go somewhere? Science still has no definite answer as to what consciousness is.

Nothing has a definite answer to what consciousness is. Certainly no evidence has ever been discovered to suggest the consciousness does anything other than cease to exist when the brain dies, so until evidence to the contrary is put forth, i can only assume that is what happens.



I don't recall saying any of those answers were right, merely that they are answers that can be determined via a scientific process. You claimed that a scientific process cannot provide answers to those questions, if what you meant was 'a scientific process cannot provide correct answers to those questions' then you might want to say that the first time, and i would then put forth that neither can anything else.