Print

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

[Areyar]

hehehe. he said he uses his horn.

With quasi-science I tried to convey the tricky logic and faulty premises that are often used in arguments designed to confuse non-believers. (Such as the damnation safety bet).
Musing about the workings of the universe and the nature of conciousness and human perception is natural.

Picking and choosing your favorite fragments is also the method used by those arguing for blind belief of the whole.
As a portion presented as proof is disproven, it is discarded and other arguments found.

To be a member of a society you have to accept and follow the complete set of its rules. Officially, you cannot pick and choose in religion either, only the separation of religion from law allows such freedom.
If not for secularism, there would be unrest at every election, as each faction not only seeks representation, but absolute control over the law and will not abide to live under the laws of another religion. Examples enough from many nations where islam, cristianity and miscellaneous are present in one country ... such as many in central africa and south-east asia. Examples too of religions living under a fundamentalist other law, but these are exceptions and mostly the subjugated faction only does so because they were soundly defeated and stripped of any power. Like jews in Iran.
It is almost universal that where a religion is strongly represented it seeks to increase its influence on the affairs of state and reduce the freedom of other religions.
So, secularism is a good thing and neccesary for peace.
Ideally it creates a common ground of universal rights and laws that apply to every citizen regardless of creed. In practice, the dominant religion still manages to insinuate preferential treatment and repressive legislation just by higher representation though.

I'm just rambling now. Not very coherent or thought through.

[Andir]

Every time we ask Siquo what he would do in this or that situation, or how he would evaluate whether an action would be immoral or not, he's using criteria external to his religious beliefs. As long as he's doing that, it's pointless to argue with him. He can believe that god exists and that he might be a unicorn all he wants, as long as his interactions with the world are based on other things.

Plus, apparently he's not even sure what he believes.

I've concluded he believes what he wants to believe.  Right or wrong, it's pure ignorance and bliss.  It doesn't matter if it's destructive, anti-societal, or false.  He's either a very strong egoist or he's trolling everyone here simply by being argumentative.

[Siquo]

To answer both Dreiche and Andir, the real-world ramifications of my beliefs are, but not limited to, in no special order:

- Always try to view things from the other person's side. Every single time. I hardly ever get mad at people because of this. Why? Those people are just other versions of me (long story). People do get mad at me if I apply this to people they are mad at.
- Try to do good. Where "good" is: what would Jesus do. He wouldn't kill, even in self defense, he wouldn't discredit, gossip, spread rumours, talk bad about people. He got mad only once. I'm still having trouble turning the other cheek, though. It's hard, but I'm trying.
- Be respectful to other people's beliefs, however ridiculous they may seem. After all, every crazy guy that sais A, has an equal chance of being right as the 6 billion others who say B, because "absolutely right" is not determinable.

There are a few more but I try to uphold these principles based on my beliefs.

[Areyar]

I tried the solipsist view for a while, couldnt keep it up though, I'm not egotistic enough.

I've tried being always right, if only as a joke, but that wore out too.

Agnosticism, though fair, doesn't work for me because the idea of onipotent beings is offensive to my sensibilities. *
gnosticism , though intriguing in it's many sectarian views, infuses the material with spiritual value. cant do that, even if I worship the natural world.
Many western people today could fit as monist gnostics: seperating a perfect source-of-all god from a fallible creator being.

Reading a bit through the gnosticism wikipedia, I am impressed in how fluid religion was at that stage. It is as if it had sollidified during the middleages into a fixed dogma and is only now becoming more fluid again as reason resurfaces. (for science! )

As an atheist I value christian values too, I have been raised a C, denounced the nonsense and kept the humanitarian world view.
"Do unto another as you would do unto thyself" is my main guiding principle in life.
If others don't play by the same rules however, they don't deserve that consideration.
Neccesity of survival may force a man to do things against his values though. (jesus in the grainfield)

*edit: here I mean omnipotent beings interacting with us, they could exist someplace, sometime, somehow.

[Siquo]

Hmm, I find omnipotence less hard to swallow than some kind of super-powered alien. It's too... anthropomorphic.

[Areyar]

In turn, I find it hard to believe an omnipotent being would be able to focus on us at all.

As a matter of scale, it would be like us following the life of a single bacterium and caring about it.
It has some credibility, but more likely in the form of an experimenter infecting a human with a toxic meme and seeing how we destroy ourselves than being egocentric enough to care the bacteria were able to chant the experimenter's name correctly.

I'm not going to accept a guy saying "YOU must do X, because I believe Y".
I'll accept that all unsubstantiated worldviews are equally baseless though.

[Siquo]

As a matter of scale, it would be like us following the life of a single bacterium and caring about it.

Not even close. Omnipotent is... very much bigger. Unlimitedly, even. You'd have time to care about every single atom in the universe.

It has some credibility, but more likely in the form of an experimenter infecting a human with a toxic meme and seeing how we destroy ourselves than being egocentric enough to care the bacteria were able to chant the experimenter's name correctly.

Absolutely. Egocentrism and arrogance are a bit below you when you're omnipotent, I'd think.

I'm not going to accept a guy saying "YOU must do X, because I believe Y".
I'll accept that all unsubstantiated worldviews are equally baseless though.

Now, where is that darned substantiated one? I'm sure I had it lying around here somewhere...

[dreiche2]

- Always try to view things from the other person's side. Every single time. I hardly ever get mad at people because of this. Why? Those people are just other versions of me (long story). People do get mad at me if I apply this to people they are mad at.

Don't need no religious basis for that, but ok.

- Try to do good. Where "good" is: what would Jesus do. He wouldn't kill, even in self defense, he wouldn't discredit, gossip, spread rumours, talk bad about people. He got mad only once. I'm still having trouble turning the other cheek, though. It's hard, but I'm trying.

You already said that you pick and choose from the bible according to what sounds sensible to you, right? So in that sense, it's perfectly fine to take Jesus as a role model if you think the guy was a good guy. But the question is what makes something "good" or "bad", and clearly you're actually using criteria to judge that which themselves do not come from the bible.

- Be respectful to other people's beliefs, however ridiculous they may seem. After all, every crazy guy that sais A, has an equal chance of being right as the 6 billion others who say B, because "absolutely right" is not determinable.

Fine in principle, but it depends what you mean with "respect". Because while you might want to respect people's belief a priory, clearly you do judge them nevertheless, as you have already stated that some things are simply wrong (like murder etc.).

Again, if someone does bad things based on his belief, how are you convince him to do otherwise without questioning his belief? You make it sound like you're perfectly accepting of everyone's belief, but in practice that just doesn't work.

When children in Africa get killed because they are 'witches', then the way to go against this is convince people that witches don't exist. Period. According to you, you would say "hey if that's what they believe! I don't care about evidence, and I couldn't prove that these kids are not witches after all, so it's fine by me!". Who are we to judge their belief, right?

Or to get back to the circumcision example:

And it once again shows my problem: Why can't they (the atheists-except-micro) let someone be wrong? Just... let it. If they bother you, tell them what bothers you. So if someone wants to circumcise his son, and you think that's childmolesting, tell him it's childmolesting, not that his entire faith is based on bullcrap.

So I'm telling him that it's "childmolesting" (or whatever), and then he tells me "but this is what god wants". And then what? There's no way I can convince him otherwise unless I question the basis of his belief, which is that the bible is god's word. And of course we can pick an example that's much worse than circumcision, that's not the point. For example, hacking of the hands of a thief in (certain forms of) Islam. How are you going to argue against this practice without arguing against the belief it's based on? Especially if it is inherent to the belief that these rules are not to be questioned, as they are god's words?

Your attitude of being accepting of other's beliefs is laudable in principle, but is totally naive and unrealistic in practice when people's beliefs have an actual impact on the word. Also, I have the impression you're defending a position you're not actually taking yourself, because again, in practice you do seem to judge others.

[Siquo]

If I seem judgemental, it's because I'm trying not to be. Not always succeeding

Perhaps my worldview is naive from your perspective (and really, calling something naive is quite condescending, and the same as the "right/wrong" argument) from my worldview it's naive to think that changing someones belief is going to change their ways.

Take female circumcision. Nowhere in the Qu'ran is there something about female circumcision, and most islamic people don't practice it. The regions where it is practised, already did it before the islam even got there. So there's actually no connection, except for people saying there is.

I'm positive that telling people not to kill is more effective than trying to change their belief from which they have derived that someone should be killed. Christians have killed many "witches", but "we" don't anymore, and yet Christianity is still here. I can still call an action inappropriate or wrong, but not call the person or his belief wrong.

A secular humanist state should be able to do that. If only religion were less organised, we'd have more of those.

[Sergius]

G-Flex: Valid != truth. I used the term validity here as "internally consistent", which is the same meaning logic gives to it. Why are the morals sounder? Why are they pre-existing, my belief may be older? Soundness and validity have nothing to do with absolute truth or how much you agree with it or not.

That makes no sense at all. "Internally consistent" means that a system doesn't contradict its own assertions, not that it's valid.

"Traveling faster than light is possible. My spaceship travels faster than light" is internally consistent. For the second thing to be true, the first thing also HAS to be true. That's consistency, and that's what logic is about.

You can't say "I can fly unassisted!" and if someone tells you you're lying, you claim "internally consistent with my belief that I can fly!". It has to be "internally consistent" with the universe that you happen to live in. "Superman can fly" is internally consistent with weird superhero comic universe laws of "physics".

If you're trying to use "internal consistency" as a pro argument for believing the craziest shit, then you're out of luck, because that only applies to fiction.

Now, I'll give you an example of something that's not "internally consistent":

Sample 1:

And I'm really worried about offending people, because I A. don't want to offend people and B. this is the longest non-locked religion/non-religion thread on these forums ever and I'd like to keep it that way. I'm sorry if it sounded condescending

Sample 2:

To most of you: For people who hold the scientific principles and modern logic in such high regard, you've obviously not studied it well enough to be critical of it, and wield it well. (ouch! that must've hurt!) If you value criticising one's own belief so much, please do so yourself first. Read! Learn! Re-evaluate! I once was way worse than you guys (except micro!), when I was about 18. Science Is The One And Only Truth or something like that. Then my wiser then-gf gave me some Popper and Kuhn to read, that helped putting things into perspective.

See? That's not internally consistent.

[Areyar]

hmm.
The trial that disproves being a witch should use a negative control though, the judge (or rather the claimant) should undergo the same trial.
This to avoid the trial-by-death applied most commonly in cases of witchcraft accusations.

One substantiated view is: Humans are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, so is the world and probably the rest of the universe, so I am made of atoms and energy as well. energy is exchanged between particles, causing these interesting effects among which life. life's ultimate goal is to continue life (if not continue to live).
It is short and incomplete, I know, but it is substantiated. . . Don't want to searchh for references, but I assume there are enough in this wiki.

[Micro102]

Hmm, I find omnipotence less hard to swallow than some kind of super-powered alien. It's too... anthropomorphic.

So if we advance far enough to travel to other worlds and find life, will you believe science more then god?

[dreiche2]

Take female circumcision. Nowhere in the Qu'ran is there something about female circumcision, and most islamic people don't practice it. The regions where it is practised, already did it before the islam even got there. So there's actually no connection, except for people saying there is.

I didn't talk about circumcision, I talked about hacking off hands. But it doesn't matter, you're evading the point. If you're arguing about what the Qu'ran does and doesn't say, you already arguing about what people should believe! Whether the Qu'ran does or doesn't say it, some people believe that performing circumcision is the right thing to do. Again, how are you going to convince them otherwise without questioning their belief?

Again, how are you going to stop people from killing kids as witches if beliefs are not to be questioned and evidence is overrated?

I'm positive that telling people not to kill is more effective than trying to change their belief from which they have derived that someone should be killed. Christians have killed many "witches", but "we" don't anymore, and yet Christianity is still here. I can still call an action inappropriate or wrong, but not call the person or his belief wrong.

You cannot if the belief is that the action is right. If someone stones an adulterer because his belief is that adulterers are to be stoned (see: bible), then how are you going to call the action wrong without calling the belief wrong?

life's ultimate goal is to continue life (if not continue to live).

And the ultimate goal of all things with mass is to fall?

[Siquo]

It is short and incomplete, I know, but it is substantiated. . . Don't want to searchh for references, but I assume there are enough in this wiki.

Hmm, nothing in that article about the ultimate goal of life. Also, what techniques did you use to substantiate it? How were those techniques substantiated? Etcetera, etcetera.

Sergius, Valid. Again, learn something about logic before trying to use it. Also, if me calling you out on a lack of knowledge in a field you are defending is an attack on you, then I'm sorry. I usually like being shown where I lack knowledge, so that I can increase it. For the people too lazy to read the entire article, an excerpt:

An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:

    All men are mortal.
    Socrates is a man.
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises: the argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

    All cups are green.
    Socrates is a cup.
    Therefore, Socrates is green.

Micro: I'm not anthropocentric. Aliens can and probably do exist. Also, "believing in science" goes against everything I already said, that's Scientism, something I strongly oppose, since believing in science actually dilutes the purity that is science.

Dreiche: If the belief specifies specific things that are incompatible with my belief (such as killing), one of us will have to reinterpret the belief. Happens all the time. My country still lives "with the bible", but no-one is stoned here nowadays. Christians consider adultery wrong, but stoning has been abandoned. Still, I will attack the action, not the belief. If they feel their belief is attacked because it is attached to the action, that's out of my hands. I also believe in personal responsibility, and that works two ways. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and beliefs. If a belief tells you to do X, that is in no way an excuse for anything if you actually do it.

[Sergius]

Sergius, Valid. Again, learn something about logic before trying to use it.

Congratulations! You just rendered every single argument of yours in this thread invalid! And I repeat:

Sample 1:

And I'm really worried about offending people, because I A. don't want to offend people and B. this is the longest non-locked religion/non-religion thread on these forums ever and I'd like to keep it that way. I'm sorry if it sounded condescending

Sample 2:

To most of you: For people who hold the scientific principles and modern logic in such high regard, you've obviously not studied it well enough to be critical of it, and wield it well. (ouch! that must've hurt!) If you value criticising one's own belief so much, please do so yourself first. Read! Learn! Re-evaluate! I once was way worse than you guys (except micro!), when I was about 18. Science Is The One And Only Truth or something like that. Then my wiser then-gf gave me some Popper and Kuhn to read, that helped putting things into perspective.

As always, you're not being internally consistent.