Print

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

[Toady One]

A few people in this thread can afford to cool off a bit.  I'll be sending out warnings if you continue to attack each other instead of having a discussion.

Actually I'd be kind of tickled. I've never received a PM without it being a reply.

So if a warning isn't enough, and you want to make a post like this:

I'm leaning more towards refusal (or whatever you want to call it) on the simple basis that it is the default position when no evidence is available.

But earlier you discredited refusal on a lack of belief. Waffler. You really are right on the line. Call yourself something else. Athnostic if you like.

All atheists I know assume the position of refusal in the face of evidence, but you however know you should waver.

someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

Teehee. An agnostic atheist I say.

A 3 day mute then.  You can disagree, correct and debate without being an asshole.  I'm aware there are other assholes in this thread, but you're the only one that's really continued on (so far) after my thread warning, so I'm starting here.

[RAM]

The future can be viewed as a series of states, as each on changes it becomes the next. The past can be viewed the same way, each state perceived is the result of the next one changing. There is no great difference between 10 seconds and 1000 years. There need be no beginning, there is simply an endless succession of states stretching back as far as you are able to understand. The thought of the existence that we are familiar with spontaneously coming into being or being created by an entity that must also justify the cause of it's existence, and the motivations for its timing, is completely alien. The most probable scenario is that the universe was not created, therefore the most probably scenario is that any entity that claims to have created the universe is lying...

[Sordid]

Heh, and here I figured I'd be the one on the receiving end of an admin's ire.

And yet you act as though I am wrong for drawing a different conclusion than you, which I do because we also have this idea that there is no evidence suggesting he can't.

There is no evidence an invisible pink unicorn that created the world last thursday doesn't exist either. Are you going to seriously entertain that notion too?
Didn't think so.
The burden of proof is on the believer. If you disagree, then the burden is on you to disprove all the gods you don't believe in. I have yet to hear an argument from a believer against one god that can't also be used against theirs.

In spite of that you say that we should reject religion on the basis that there is no evidence.  We have no evidence that wormholes or any other method of warping physics are even possible. They could be, but there is no evidence.

Wrong, several types of wormholes are known to be possible under general relativity. Look it up on wikipedia, it has a pretty good discussion of the topic.

[LegoLord]

In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time.

That is the first line after searching "wormholes."  Hypothetical.  Meaning there is no proof of their existence as of yet.  We lack the technology to gather sufficient proof.  And despite the fact that someone has pointed out things can be disproven, you claim that the believer must prove something, even though someone said something along the lines of "I believe this . . ." and you began arguing about how wrong they are.  You are the one making the claim.  Belief is not a statement of fact, but of a personal opinion of how to explain that which we have no supported explanation for.  You, however, instead of saying you don't believe in god, call the person stating his belief out as being wrong, speaking as though what you say is hard fact.

[Sordid]

In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is fundamentally a 'shortcut' through space and time.

That is the first line after searching "wormholes."  Hypothetical.  Meaning there is no proof of their existence as of yet.

Oh sure, but you argued there's no evidence for their possibility, which the article shows a bit further down is actually pretty good.

Belief is not a statement of fact, but of a personal opinion of how to explain that which we have no supported explanation for.

I don't see what "explanation" has to do with it. The existence of God is a simple yes/no question. And no, belief in such a case is actually a statement of fact. You can have your opinions on such things as which flower is the prettiest or whether Mozart is better than Beethoven, in other words things relating to beauty, justice, or other such mental constructs, but not in matters of objective reality.

You, however, instead of saying you don't believe in god, call the person stating his belief out as being wrong, speaking as though what you say is hard fact.

Go on, disprove Shiva. I can't wait to hear your reasons for not believing in him.

[LegoLord]

You have failed to explain how belief is not a matter of opinion, like which flower is the prettiest.  Saying a religion is wrong is like saying that a bird of paradise is prettier than a rose, and at the same time calling everyone who likes roses best wrong.

[Andir]

Wait, you have a right to be ignorant? That would mean that nobody can share any information without obtaining permission from the recipient. Do you have a right to be ignorant of the community's belief as it pertains to laws...

Yes, you hve the right to be ignorant, but you'll be tried and convicted under the laws you choose to be ignorant of.  I suggest you avoid contact and socilizing with those that do not understand this law.

They are born in your country, there is nothing voluntary about it, and if they don't like it they will be prosecuted. There is no guaranteed avenue for those who oppose your laws to establish their own country or to seek an existing one that suits more of their beliefs...

Precisely.  If they do not like the law, they can leave upon reaching legal age and being out of the custody of those that raised them.  That's the voluntary part of it all.  You don't have to stay here.  If you choose to stay, you are volunteering to follow the law.

[MrWiggles]

You have failed to explain how belief is not a matter of opinion, like which flower is the prettiest.  Saying a religion is wrong is like saying that a bird of paradise is prettier than a rose, and at the same time calling everyone who likes roses best wrong.

Religion isn't atheistic or opinion. It correctness isn't subjective. Religion places several things are true, and for most religions, one of the core tenets is some sorta god.

Anything which is asserted to be true must be challenged. From with standing challenge, then can it be given credence.

Each claim of truth of any religion can be viewed independently of the other truth the religion holds. And some religion do have truths, but if the basis for those truth are false, then it should be thrown out.

You can demonstrate that stealing harm others, independent of any godhead. You can demonstrate that killing harm others without a godhead. Hell, you can even demonstrate being ass can harm others.

You can't demonstrate any gods.

Most religion state these are bad because of God(s). When examined, the component of the god adds nothing. And therefore should be dropped.

An example of something getting an idea correct, a truth but from the wrong basis is phrenology. It basis for determining that the brian is compartmentalized is correct, but its basis was erroneous. Thusly it was dropped.

Edit: Hold false truth is harmful. It allows for other false truths to be held, increasing the likely hood of accepting at best waste of time, and worse, the cost life and money.

[Andir]

Religion isn't atheistic or opinion. It correctness isn't subjective. Religion places several things are true, and for most religions, one of the core tenets is some sorta god.

I could be wrong, and I know some consider Buddha a "god" but isn't Hinduism more of a philosophy than a "god bearing" religion?

[LegoLord]

When looking at a new hypothesis, there are two questions about it:  Can I perform a test to prove it?  Can I perform a test to disprove it?
If you answer both those questions, and the answer is no, you can't go and tell people that they are wrong for hypothesizing about it, because you have no way of knowing.  It could be completely unrelated to what you think is the cause.

On top of that, religion isn't even a hypothesis.  Is there any tangible concept that religion dictates "this is how it works", that cannot be dismissed as a metaphor?  No!  Religion applies to people's actions, not chemistry, physics, or biology.  It is not a proposed law for the functioning of some observation of a physical occurrence, say, an egg spontaneously bursting without undergoing chemical change.  Find a part of the bible that can be compared to a physics textbook, and then you will have a valid reason for applying the scientific method to a non-scientific field.

Also:  Buddha was a Hindu who started and converted to Buddhism.  He was the one who supposedly achieved enlightenment, breaking the cycle that Hinduism dictates that there is.  Hinduism has gods; I can't say I'm too sure about Buddhism - that is a part of it I am not to clear on.

[Sordid]

Religion isn't atheistic or opinion. It correctness isn't subjective. Religion places several things are true, and for most religions, one of the core tenets is some sorta god.

I could be wrong, and I know some consider Buddha a "god" but isn't Hinduism more of a philosophy than a "god bearing" religion?

You mean Buddhism, and yes the line can be blurry there and it depends largely on the particular branch of the religion. However, even Buddhism doesn't avoid making unsupported claims about the natural world (such as the whole reincarnation business).

When looking at a new hypothesis, there are two questions about it:  Can I perform a test to prove it?  Can I perform a test to disprove it?
If you answer both those questions, and the answer is no, you can't go and tell people that they are wrong for hypothesizing about it, because you have no way of knowing.  It could be completely unrelated to what you think is the cause.

There is also a third question, how likely is this hypothesis based on what I already know. From that you set how much evidence is required for the hypothesis to be accepted and, conversely, how much skepticism needs to be applied to it. With gods, that threshold is pretty damn high.

On top of that, religion isn't even a hypothesis.  Is there any tangible concept that religion dictates "this is how it works", that cannot be dismissed as a metaphor?  No!

So why pray?

[MrWiggles]

Religion isn't atheistic or opinion. It correctness isn't subjective. Religion places several things are true, and for most religions, one of the core tenets is some sorta god.

I could be wrong, and I know some consider Buddha a "god" but isn't Hinduism more of a philosophy than a "god bearing" religion?

That why there the qualifier of most. Hinduism, notwithstanding a godhead does have various bits of magical thinking that it holds to be true. It holds these truth for different reasons that must be examined just with the god claim.

[Ampersand]

Buddhism does have Gods as mystical beings, but not as objects of worship.

And as for what part of the Bible can be compared to a textbook?

Genesis.

[MrWiggles]

When looking at a new hypothesis, there are two questions about it:  Can I perform a test to prove it?  Can I perform a test to disprove it?
If you answer both those questions, and the answer is no, you can't go and tell people that they are wrong for hypothesizing about it, because you have no way of knowing.  It could be completely unrelated to what you think is the cause.

Of course not. Duh. But we can tell them they are wrong when they use this untested hypothesis without support to further other claims. Which is what religion does in relation to god.

On top of that, religion isn't even a hypothesis.  Is there any tangible concept that religion dictates "this is how it works", that cannot be dismissed as a metaphor?  No!  Religion applies to people's actions, not chemistry, physics, or biology.  It is not a proposed law for the functioning of some observation of a physical occurrence, say, an egg spontaneously bursting without undergoing chemical change.  Find a part of the bible that can be compared to a physics textbook, and then you will have a valid reason for applying the scientific method to a non-scientific field.

...

You could look at any holy text as metaphor. This is true, but you can't say that then say that god is true. If the holy book is entirely metaphorical, then its god concept is aswell, and therefore not real and thus not worth belief. No one touts Aesops Fables for its truth.

Edit: Aesops Fables

[Ampersand]

Aesops Fables.