Print

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

[MrWiggles]

You realize that it could be said that everthing just exploding out of a point in nothing spontaneously is ridiculous without some driving force, right?  Has any one said that? 

Oh sure. Lots, it generally known as the first cause argument, and is flawed from its outset. Everything need something to be triggered.  Cept God.

There no difference instating that the universe can just be and god just be. Like any good model any extra information that adds nothing or little, should be dropped.

Although beyond this, by saying 'magic/god did it!', is lazy and leaves us nothing. By saying such answer provides us with nothing new. As it can be applied to everything. With having an answer it stifles discovery.

[Andir]

And you realize that to find an answer a scientist must first perform a series of test that disprove any other logical possibilities?  Yeah.  You realize that they disproved the flatness of Earth, something previously accepted as fact even though no one tried to disprove the roundness of the Earth?  You should.  Where the hell in what I said did I make out that what people thought was how things are?

No.  Science only requires that you prove your theorem.  You may disprove another theorem on the way there, but your goal is to try to prove that your guess is the right one... not that another is the wrong one.  If you think science is solely to discredit everything, you are no better than the Atheists you claim are "attacking" religion.  Ignorance is a two way street.

You realize that I did not use the words "big bang"?  You realize that there would have to be some point where everything was produced, big bang being the start or not?

No... there doesn't.  Everything in the universe could have always existed without anyone creating it at all.  You formulated the explanation that everything MUST have been created and discredit any other explanation.  You formulated a guess, never tested it, and accept it as truth.

You realize that belief doesn't automatically refer to omnipotent beings?  You realize that small children will believe there are monsters under their beds, even if no one has told them such?

Children are taught about these monsters through television, movies and stories told to them by parents and other children.  Have you ever stopped to watch cartoons?  There are some that depict "bad things" lurking in dark places.  The human brain is good at putting things together to form what it thinks are valid solutions to the evidence it has at hand.  It's kind of like science... in fact, it is science.  Using the evidence at hand to formulate a guess to what that sound was under your bed.  It doesn't immediately go to find out what's NOT under the bed.  You ARE like the child with the monster under the bed.  Your brain tells you that this thing MUST exist because it's the only thing that explains all the evidence you have for the situation at hand.  EXCEPT... you shun science thinking that it's only purpose is to disprove "God" and you fail to use it to try to prove that he does.  (Yes, there are people of religious note that do use Science for this purpose...)

You realize that in my first post I already said religious people can't find tangible evidence of God's existence either?  So that, in part, you just agreed with me?

I never said I disagree.  I just don't believe in "God" and I feel that I need to prove that something exists using the scientific method.  Not use science to disprove something that someone's brain has formulated as their answer to it all.  I don't have any evidence to prove "God" exists, therefore it doesn't.

You are the one trying to twist science and explanation into something it's not.

[Idiom]

Everything in the universe could have always existed without anyone creating it at all.

At which point there is no "if". Only a "when" and a "where". Normality would be normality but everything becomes correct.

Ignorance is a two way street.

Good for a LOL.

[Andir]

Everything in the universe could have always existed without anyone creating it at all.

At which point there is no "if". Only a "when" and a "where". Normality would be normality but everything becomes correct.

Ignorance is a two way street.

Good for a LOL.

Not sure what you're getting at with "when", "where", and "if"...

I thought of a proper analogy to possibly explain Lego's thoughts on science in general and my thoughts on religion.

Two children are having a sleepover.  Both of them hear a sound coming from under the bed.  It's a collection of growling noises and something being chewed.

The religious child pieces together the noises in his head and concludes that there is a monster under there waiting for him to go to sleep.
The science child listens to the sounds and guesses that the rustling sounds like something rubbing on carpet, the growling noise sounds like a dog, and the slopping noise could be an animal chewing on a bone.

The science child decided to have a look and test his theorems.
The religious child berates the science child for trying to say his monster doesn't exist.

The science child looks under the bed and sees the family pet, chewing on a rawhide (not a bone, he guessed wrong!) and explains it to the religious child.
The religious child says that the monster must have been scared off by the pet, but he was there.  He's absolutely sure about it.  Maybe the monster is still there, behind the dog.  You still haven't explained that bone chewing noise so you are obviously flawed in your research.  We can't be sure... but there was a monster.  That's for sure.

[Sordid]

Sordid, when the idea of animals changing even slightly over time (Darwin) was first introduced, people were confused and angry.

Wrong, evolution had been on the table for decades before Darwin came up with a plausible mechanism by which it works.

You think you find mocking other people entertaining?

I don't remember saying anything remotely like that.

Well then I don't think you're in any position to say what an omnipotent being, much more knowledgeable than you, and certainly more mature, would do.

I don't, the people who belive in that being make those claims. I only point out that the claims appear to be baseless.

And you said "invisible" - which merely defines it as not being visible (ie - undetectable with eyes).

That's her name, you know. But she is undetectable.

A unicorn is not an omnipotent being and could be detected by some means.

True, regular unicorns are little more than horses with horn. Invisible unicorns, however, are omnipotent as a matter of fact.

The idea behind an omnipotent being is that it has no real tangible form.

Wrong, the idea behind an omnipotent being is that it is all-powerful. That would include being able to take on a physical form.

Again, you should now what you are talking about.

Right back at you.

Yes, you are mocking religion.

I'm sorry, I simply don't consider "you're wrong and here's why" to be mockery.

It's hard not to be mocking when you call a large number of people's beliefs ridiculous when you have no tangible reason to say that.

I don't have to, the burden of proof is on the believer.

You realize that it could be said that everthing just exploding out of a point in nothing spontaneously is ridiculous without some driving force, right?  Has any one said that?

Yes, that claim is often made. It misses several key points, however, such as the fact that we do know that things can actually happen without any cause (the whole quantum insanity, again one of the things much harder to wrap one's mind around than evolution) and also that nobody claims the big bang began in a point. Singularity is what general relativity predicts, but at that scale general relativity doesn't work and we need a theory of quantum gravity, which we don't have yet. Basically, we don't know. That does not, however, automatically mean that God did it.

I personally don't believe the idea is ridiculous, but that is all a matter of perspective

No it isn't. It's a matter of evidence.

Just because you think you are a logical person who automatically comes up with the least ridiculous hypothesis does not mean you actually are.

Which is why I base my beliefs about the nature and origin of the cosmos on the findings of people much smarter and more educated than myself.

And what were the doctrines ripped from? The problem with many contemporary religions is they take things too literally, or not literally enough.

As far as I can tell, a lot of them have been simply made up. But then again so had been the holy books, so it doesn't really matter.

Hidden as in you don't know and can't find, no falsifiable hypothesis in what I was implying.

Cameras are physical objects, of course you can find them if you look hard enough. As an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis they totally fail.

Like right now, you sitting at the computer, without being able to get up or look around or even look away from the monitor, is there a something watching you?

I am able to get up and look around whenever I please.

Alternatively: Is someone actively monitoring your internet activities (presuming you don't do anything that should deserve such attention)?

Are spy satellites looking at you right now?

Are we being monitored from space?

Even more abstract: Are we being monitored beyond our current abilities to detect?

You didn't say any of those, you said cameras in the apartment. These aren't falsifiable, cameras are.

Religion to me has always been like waving or smiling at the security cameras you pass: "I don't care if you're an ass, a good guy, or what I've heard you claim. Hi there. I'm willing to be cooperative. Don't blackmail me for stealing that pen if anyone there saw that."

It comes down to: What is in the dark (just outside of our perception)? Either you just walk straight through because you've yet to encounter anything, or you dance a your little jig as you go just in case. Dancing a jig is ridiculous from a perspective just as is asking to be caught flat-footed.

Look, you can see what I was getting at?

Sounds like a variation on Pascal's wager to me.

Or boiled even further down:

Problem: THERE'S NO FUCKING ABSOLUTE ANSWER!

A) DO SOMETHING!
B) DON'T DO ANYTHING!

Both A and B are stupid.

C) Keep looking.

Religion is not in and of itself a political tool.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."
- Mahatma Gandhi

That people use it as such is the fault of those people, not the religion.

Since they have been indoctrinated by the religion to think that religiosity is a virtue, yes it is the fault of the religion.

I don't cast out atheists, unless they are trying to prove religion wrong.  It's fine if you don't believe, but acting like you are right about it is arrogant bigotry, just as casting out atheists is arrogant bigotry.

Oh this is priceless. Every religion on the whole damn planet can trumpet into the world that it alone is in the possession of the One Eternal Immutable Ultimate Truth and it's perfectly okay, but when an atheist dares say the same, nooooo, that is offensive!
No. Fuck that shit. All religions are baseless, there's no evidence to even hint at the possibility that there is any higher power anywhere, and believing in it is irrational and a waste of a perfectly good brain.

You realize that there would have to be some point where everything was produced, big bang being the start or not?

No, actually, I don't realize that. I have often been told that infinite past is impossible, but never have I heard any coherent reason why that should be so. So no, I don't see why there should be some kind of ultimate beginning of everything.

You realize that belief doesn't automatically refer to omnipotent beings?  You realize that small children will believe there are monsters under their beds, even if no one has told them such?

If only people grew out of belief in God the same way they grow out of belief in monsters...

You realize that in my first post I already said religious people can't find tangible evidence of God's existence either?  So that, in part, you just agreed with me?

Right. There's no evidence. Then why believe in it?

[Rilder]

Theres no evidence that anybody but me is sentient, therefore you shall all be my slaves. 

[Nilocy]

Theres no evidence that anybody but me is sentient, therefore you shall all be my slaves. 

I can use that exact same statement against you. Creating a horrible paradox.

[Sordid]

Theres no evidence that anybody but me is sentient, therefore you shall all be my slaves. 

I can use that exact same statement against you. Creating a horrible paradox.

Or it could be that the behavior of other individuals is evidence, albeit indirect, of their sentience.

[MrWiggles]

Theres no evidence that anybody but me is sentient, therefore you shall all be my slaves. 

I know this meant to be a farce, but I don't think a single animal in a species can be declared sentient and sapient. I think at most you can be declared smarter then most.

Interesting question though. Star Trek absolved the corollary question of a species compose of a single animal (driod) can be consider self aware.

[andrea]

instead of trying to decide who is wrong, why can't we say that both sides are right?
religion made some poeple do good things, and other people do bad things.

but that happened with atheists too! this happens with all people!
give a man a leaf, and i bet he can find a way to turn it into some reason to do something or something else.

religion, when faith is true, but it don't turn a person in a fanatic , is actually a pretty good thing in my opinion. atheism, when is also good, for science maybe, since atheists believe that there is no metaphysical creating being, that leads to them looking answers in nture instead of saying "a wizard did it".

but both sides are annoying when they put too much effort into saying that somebody else's belief is wrong. trying is allowed, but trying too hard, face it, is just annoying. because it is not about proof. in fact, i can't think of any proof that God does or doesn't exist. at most, you can call occam's razor, but that is a double edges sword. it just depends on who you are speaking too.

God shouldn't be allowed to enter science, because it is not proven, so it can't be used (i will use "it", because people may argue if "he" or "she" should be used, or both. since God is obviously not human, "it" might work).
but calling the belief in God wrong puts you in the wrong side. just because it isn't proven, it doesn't mean it can't exist. for all scientifical matters, it should be thought as non existing until proven, but that doesnt mean it is impossible.

science is knowledge, it is a path, but neither its direction nor what we will find on it are known. of course, we shouldn't leave this path just because we think there is a shortcut, or an hot dog sale just beyond the hill. but believing that there is something there is not wrong.


just my opinion of course. being opinion less strong than belief, feel free to cut and bash my post, if you think you can call believes wrong.

[MrWiggles]

instead of trying to decide who is wrong, why can't we say that both sides are right?
religion made some poeple do good things, and other people do bad things.

but that happened with atheists too! this happens with all people!
give a man a leaf, and i bet he can find a way to turn it into some reason to do something or something else.

You would be hard press to find an atheist to do an atrocity that was inspired from their lack of god. Atheist can do atrocity, and some have. However Religion has a much greater influence force that can and does allow the average person to do some cruel things. Such as but not limited to; exorcism.

religion, when faith is true, but it don't turn a person in a fanatic , is actually a pretty good thing in my opinion. atheism, when is also good, for science maybe, since atheists believe that there is no metaphysical creating being, that leads to them looking answers in nture instead of saying "a wizard did it".

Religion, when faith is true... Does this some how imply that faith and belief diminish if there evangelical, or fanatic?

And Atheist can totally believe in magic. Atheist just apply to gods. Bill Moher, loud mouth atheist, believes in various bits of magic. An atheist answer is 'god didn't do it!' but that doesn't retard in believing its chi, or souls. Or other various magic.

but both sides are annoying when they put too much effort into saying that somebody else's belief is wrong. trying is allowed, but trying too hard, face it, is just annoying. because it is not about proof. in fact, i can't think of any proof that God does or doesn't exist. at most, you can call occam's razor, but that is a double edges sword. it just depends on who you are speaking too.

Well both sides have good intention. The theist with an afterlife belief don't want to see someone needless suffer. The rationalist doesn't want you to be deluded. Doesn't want you to became the victim of magical thinking. Doesn't want you to give up and give in to ignorance. As a mind set which readily accept claims without or with poor evidence are more able to believe in detrimental things such as scams, psedo science that take money and life. At best its a waste of time. At worse its your hard earned money and/or life.
 
http://whatstheharm.net/

God shouldn't be allowed to enter science, because it is not proven, so it can't be used (i will use "it", because people may argue if "he" or "she" should be used, or both. since God is obviously not human, "it" might work).
but calling the belief in God wrong puts you in the wrong side. just because it isn't proven, it doesn't mean it can't exist. for all scientifical matters, it should be thought as non existing until proven, but that doesnt mean it is impossible.

It lack of fallibility makes it impossible. Well not impossible, that an absolute. But it makes it likely hood fall to the point of being zero. It lack of evidence also doesn't help.

As for God not being apart of science. This is true. What science can test is when that God affects our natural world. And so far nothing. With each passing year the liklyhood of good grows smaller and smaller. It can never be proclaimed with certainty at zero. But it can look exactly like it.

science is knowledge, it is a path, but neither its direction nor what we will find on it are known. of course, we shouldn't leave this path just because we think there is a shortcut, or an hot dog sale just beyond the hill. but believing that there is something there is not wrong.
...

It can be wrong. Belief can totally be wrong. Believing the world is flat, is wrong. And doesn't deserve any respect. Believing that there a tea pot from here and in between  Mars orbit, is fallacious.

Believing that its okay to have sex with children is wrong.

Three examples. One in spite of evidence, one in lack of evidence, and one in harms of others. And a God belief can and does fall into these three forms. There others to be sure.

I propose the questions to you andrea, should we respect belief which are wrong or could be wrong? Should one hold wrong beliefs? And this case, wrong can also be false.

If a belief is correct, then is there a system to prove it so without challenging it?

Which is more productive to knowing which belief is correct? No Challenge and investigation or seeing if they hold any water?

If one holds false/wrong belief then could we call this person gullible? If held in defiance of evidence, delusional?

If a person held a belief that telephone operated on the basis of small elves ejaculating into ones mouth, and the snowball the pass down the line holds your conversation, would this person be called sane? Should we respect and presume it correct because its a belief? Does it not deserve question because it touted as a belief?

[LegoLord]

Okay, Sordid and Andir, let me get this straight.  You are trying to say religious people are wrong by presenting a lack of evidence, even though, while it is entirely possible that a truly omnipotent being could create a tangible form, that same omnipotence should allow it to avoid solid detection by humans?  That it would not need a form that humans could detect?

Knowing, having solid evidence, is not believing, and that's not the point.  Sure, God could pop up next to you and do some magic and prove he exists (assuming he does), but would you believe in him?  Probably not.  Have you never seen something and not believed it?  Most people have.  Sometimes people just don't believe in something because they know it exists, which contradicts any idea that religion can or needs to be proven.  After all, you know your computer exists, but do you believe in your keyboard?  I don't believe in my keyboard.  I know it exists.  Saying you can disprove a belief with knowledge is like saying you can neutralize a basic solution with oil.  It just doesn't work that way.  An idea (making sure that you don't mistake it as a single idea behind it) behind God is that you believe, not that you know.

Now let's look at this hypothetical situation.  You are driving down the road.  A man is standing in the road up ahead, and so you stop.  He runs up to you, you roll down your windshield and you ask what's wrong.  He says that he had been lost in the woods during a hiking trip, had either lost or used up all his supplies and belongings, and had only just now found the road and was in desperate need of help.  He says he is very wealthy and will reward you when you get back to the city.

You have no evidence either denying this or supporting this.  Sure, you have his story, and his clothes are ragged, as though he had been lost for quite sometime, but he could have roughed himself up just to get you to let your guard down, you may think.  Others may not; they may accept his story and help him out.  Now, see, the ones who, lacking any evidence and deny his story, completely rejecting any possibility that he may be telling the truth, those are the atheists that try too hard to prove religious people wrong.  Those who don't think for a second that he may be lying, those are religious people trying too hard to convert others to their religion.  People who would carefully consider his story and try to come up with a solution that would have little possibility of anyone dying or getting ripped off, those are the people in between, who can either be atheist or religious, and they are the good people.  They are the people who accept the fact that, since they have no solid evidence, they may be wrong.

Now imagine you live in a hellish world.  Then someone blindfolds you and puts you in a random spot.  They tell you that if you step forward, you will go to paradise (which you don't really know), or you could step back and remain in the hellish world.  You don't know that stepping forward would actually be better.  Believing in religion is hoping that it might, which some people find comforting, and which you shouldn't say they are wrong for, whether or not they actually end up being right in the end.  Because you don't know, and you can't know.

Also, what are you trying to prove by claiming the pink unicorn is God (calling it Omnipotent)?

@ Mister Wiggles:  There have been people who go into crime solely because they don't believe there will be any retribution by an omnipotent power after they die.

[MrWiggles]

@ Mister Wiggles:  There have been people who go into crime solely because they don't believe there will be any retribution by an omnipotent power after they die.

Neat. Citation? And I would wager they're sociopaths. Lack of empathy does odd things. [And note: that sociopaths are far more common then most would like. Most of them are just the heartless salesman, the con artist. The serial murder, is rare. Thankfully.) 

[LegoLord]

Ever heard of the Zodiac?  No, not the thing made out of stars in the sky.  The serial killer.  Atheist.  Believed that he would become the master of all those he killed when he died.  If I'm not mistaken, he never got more detailed about it than that.

[andrea]

hmm... i wasn't clear in my post i think.

mainly, i was speaking about belief that can't be proven or disproven.
if the phone couldn't be opened, nobody built it (or anyone who knows how it was built is dead and forgotten) and facts and observation aren't against it, then i'll accept elves.

about Earth being flat, the fact that you can fly around it and then go back from where i started is against that. if you can find a way in which all facts aren't against flat Earth, then i will respect whatever thing you believe. as long as you aren't too annoying while trying to convert me.

about faith being true i just meant that you really, really believe it. not like :"well, today i think i'll believe in this God... tomorrow i'll flip a coin to decide".

about fanatics, it is just me disliking them. it is not about respect of what they believe, it is about them being annoying or dangerous to me.