Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 370

Author Topic: Atheists  (Read 408594 times)

Andir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1155 on: September 03, 2009, 03:26:50 pm »

Yes, but that's called murder.

For it be legal they have to be pretty damn sure the person didn't do it. And that means trial after expensive trial, hearing after expensive hearing. And then they still go and kill a few innocent people by accident.
You are changing the rules in your own comparison.  Imprisoning someone and killing them both happen after you have proven guilt to the best of your ability.  In both cases you will have trials and hearings.  Using your logic, I still say imprisoning someone for life is more expensive than just putting a $.25 bullet in their head.  You are arguing semantics here.  You don't just lock someone up for life without a hearing unless you are one of the two previous Presidents.
Logged
"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Jreengus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1156 on: September 03, 2009, 03:29:20 pm »

Yes but locking someone up for life is not permanent, it is ok to lock up a small number of innocent people because if they are discovered to be innocent you just let them out. You can't unkill someone so you have to enact even more measures to make sure that nothing could possibly be wrong and they are definetly innocent.
Logged
Oh yeah baby, you know you like it.  Now stop crying and get in my lungs.
Boil your penis. I'm convinced that's how it happened.
My HoM.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1157 on: September 03, 2009, 03:41:28 pm »

It is true, an execution costs more.  They need extra appeals, extra hearings (you can kick a hearing into the long grass for a long prison sentence, but you obviously can't do that for a death sentence) and extra security.  Last minute desperate appeals are not uncommon, and that means the actual execution can get put off... for months... or years even, with legal proceedings still raging, as the person lies in death row.

The other approach is just to get a handgun and shoot someone straight after the trial, but that would result in a ridiculous numbers of miscarriages of justice.  Many people reappeal and are acquitted just days before their executions would've taken place - what would happen to the innocents who were executed before their appeal could be heard?
Logged

MrWiggles

  • Bay Watcher
  • Doubt Everything
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1158 on: September 03, 2009, 03:44:39 pm »

Where did God come from is a weak retort to the god did it answer to universe creation.
How is it a weak retort? It seems to me that it fairly concisely points out the "god did it" doesn't actually solve anything, it just shifts the exact same problem to a different entity, one which, I might add, we have even less evidence to support.

In science, you don't need an explanation for an explanation. We can attribute things to Phenomena X as a cause, without knowing the properties or origin of X.

Gravity comes to mind. We worked with gravity, without knowing the origin or properties of gravity for several hundred years, from the Age of Galieio, Newton and finally Einstein. And it still not done.
No.
1: Science is not the be all and end all of reason, the flaws of the scientific method are irrelevant to the debate.
2: That is why scientific theories are only theories, the goal of science IS to provide explanations for explanations. Science pursues and explanation, attempts to verify it, then proceeds to determine the next explanation. Leaving behind a convenient set of explanations for other fields to extrapolate from.
3:The problem here a complete lack of evidence, gravity is easily demonstrated, religion has no evidence whatsoever. You may as well say that the universe exists because you need a place to exist, and as soon as you die the universe will end. Science works because it is tested and its products are practical, religion works because people are easily manipulated and have short memories.
X: There IS a theory as to what causes gravity, one with some evidence to back it up too I might add, of course that has no relevance, as it simply pushes the question of what causes gravity to the question of what is the nature of the dimensions.
4: Science does not oppose religion, science proves things as effectively as we are able. If religion has any merits science will work towards exposing them. Religions DOES oppose science, it consistently attempts to install arbitrary statements into accepted knowledge.
5: The problem here is not that we do not know the explanation for the existence of a god, but that there isn't one to be known.

1. Yea, sure.

2. Yes, it does. However, an explanation for an explanation isn't needed for the explanation to be workable. Though, I thought gravity was a good example, as we worked with newton model for several century, and its only an approximation, its weak.  Dark Energy is a good example of a modern unknown phomena where virtually nothing is known, and it used to help explain galaxy and star formation. It would be stronger if there was an explanation for Dark Energy, but its not need for dark energy to be an explanation.

3. There equal lack of evidence. We have no explanation for the big bang. There are various speculation from quantum vacuum energy and a few others, but this is nearly empty assertions. God, however is still an unfavorable explanation, as he has the most assumptions. Although, with it being able to be applied to everything, its explanatory power is greatly diminished.

X: There is now, yes, but for several centuries there wasn't.

4: Yep.

5: I also agree with this, but only because I assert there is no god because there is no evidence.
Logged
Doesn't like running from bears = clearly isn't an Eastern European
I'm Making a Mush! Navitas: City Limits ~ Inspired by Dresden Files and SCP.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=113699.msg3470055#msg3470055
http://www.tf2items.com/id/MisterWigggles666#

LegoLord

  • Bay Watcher
  • Can you see it now?
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1159 on: September 03, 2009, 04:41:37 pm »

I must agree with you that some portions of Islamic law looks like it was copy/pasted from any random medieval European country in the 5th century, but is that a reason to hate them for it?

Another problem with religious people, is that they always equate criticism to hatred and persecution
I'm thinking you misread Rvlion's post.  He wasn't talking about religious people being problematic, he was talking about the "bad apples" within groups of religious people.  I'm a very religious person.  But I only see spite when there actually is spite.  For example, when someone makes a negative blanket statement about the people of a religion, it bothers me.  Rvlion's post, however, was wonderful, for it did not place blame over a group, but rather expressed an understanding that all these things have "bad apples," and that it doesn't make all in the group bad as well.  (where does the phrase "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" come from anyway?  It just doesn't make much sense).

Say, people keep bringing up fundamentalist interpretations of the bible.  Does anyone else wish to discuss non-fundamentalist interpretations for something new?  Even if you don't believe in the Christian God, it can be quite interesting.  Especially when one takes into acount how the bible was originally written in a very old language that has had plenty of time to change, if only in the connotations words have.

Take the "Seven Days," for example.  A teacher of mine once pointed out to me that looking at fossil records, the order in which things come to be is remarkably similar to how they are listed as being created in the bible story.  Not a perfect match, of course.  Sun, moon, plants (maybe one or two things before plants, can't remember of the top of my head), then after that I can't remember until you get to mammals and man.  Man came after animals in the "Seven Days," not to be confused with "Adam & Eve," in which animals were made for man.  The word "days" as it was originally written might have once been read as "ages," "stages," "days," or all three.  Languages, especially old ones, can change.  Just look at US English vs. UK English. 

This is just one example of what, combined with the fact that despite what people think, the world is better than it used to be, makes me think that God may quite literally be a father figure (assuming he does in fact exist).  A good parent does not hold the child's hands its whole life, does it?  Perhaps God only came in ever so often, checking in on us, maybe trying to give us a little inspiration or advice (through certain "messengers" one might say) to get us to go in the right direction (one in which things are getting better for people).  It's really once we're past the dark ages that the previous zeal of the world's religious seemed to be starting to fade (slowly).  So perhaps God's not an explanation - perhaps he's a guide, trying to get us to the human race's equivalent of graduation, to get us to be able to get along and handle problems ourselves (as a whole, although as individuals would I imagine be a bonus).  We seem to be progressing that way on our own at this point (if a bit slowly), so why should God bother coming to help us when we can do it ourselves?

A lot of this is, of course, assuming he exists.  Which we can't actually do except in explanations like that above.  But that's a portion of what I believe.

I must also disagree with RAM's statment that religion opposes science.  This is a foolish idea.  There have been religions that have encouraged science, and people who pursued science in the name of their religion.  Was it Einstein who said he "wanted to know how God made the world," or someone else (regardless, it could potentially apply to me)?  Do not mistake this for an implication that religion automatically encourages science; it is entirely possible for religion to do so.  Yet there is a type of person, so narrow-minded and who very nearly believe in science.  Now, if one such person becomes, say, a physicist, they will be unlikely to make any helpful or revolutionary discoveries.  Why?  They lack the open mind to think of such ideas that might lead to these discoveries.  Atheism, like religion, can strengthen this stubbornness.  It can also loosen it, or just have no effect at all.  Much like religion. 

I meditate on such matters quite a bit.  Intolerance bothers me, and I long for a day when people don't put so much value on what a person is and more on who they are.
Logged
"Oh look there is a dragon my clothes might burn let me take them off and only wear steel plate."
And this is how tinned food was invented.
Alternately: The Brick Testament. It's a really fun look at what the bible would look like if interpreted literally. With Legos.
Just so I remember

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1160 on: September 03, 2009, 07:09:55 pm »

Religion must by definition oppose science if they want people to believe in something there is no evidence for.

As I have said several times, as has been ignored repeatedly, the debate should never be about whether religion is good or bad, but whether it is true or false.
Logged
!!&!!

Sordid

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1161 on: September 03, 2009, 07:16:52 pm »

Of course it's true. Well you can't prove that it isn't anyway. :P
Logged

Areyar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ecstatic about recieving his own E:4 mug recently
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1162 on: September 03, 2009, 07:24:22 pm »

And isn't it bad thing to propagate falsehoods and good to spread knowledge of truth?


Scientifically, at best religion is an unproven theorem at worst a contrick of misdirection and circle-reasoning.
Logged
My images bucket for WIPs and such: link

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1163 on: September 03, 2009, 07:34:36 pm »

What I'm trying to point out, Areyar, is that something being a religion doesn't by definition make that thing bad. Religion, like any idea, can be a useful force for good in the world. I don't have a problem with that argument. The thing I have a problem with is the idea that Good = True and Bad = False.

No, there's no reason to get into that sort of debate. There are plenty of scientific hypothesis that are proposed year after year that cannot be assigned moralistic Good/Bad definitions. They are true or false, nothing more than that. We should be having the debate about Religion in the same way. Is the claim true, or is the claim false? To talk about it in any other way quickly derails the argument into invoking Hitler and Stalin and the Crusades and Eugenics and so on and so forth. Those things are irrelevant to the actual matter at hand.

Is it true or false?
Logged
!!&!!

LegoLord

  • Bay Watcher
  • Can you see it now?
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1164 on: September 03, 2009, 07:44:32 pm »

Exactly.  By the rules of science (if you're a open-minded guy who is actually going to do something to advance mankind rather than just work with what's already know), you can't make a claim about the truth of something without sufficient evidence to support or dismiss it.  No religion actually specifies how their god or gods work, how the miracles are done, or even what their god or gods are.  Sure omnipotent, covering different elements, whatever, but the number of things they could be that could allow that to work?  Countless, none specified by the religion.  Therefore there is no basis with which to gather evidence either way.  You cannot disprove something of which you know nothing.  Not to mention, there is no apparent benefit from researching religion scientifically, if such a thing were even possible.
Religion must by definition oppose science if they want people to believe in something there is no evidence for.
Does the fact that many men of science before you have been religious not prove that there is no inherent conflict unless we make it?  It should.  Why, then, would these men be able to believe in their religion and follow science if there was an automatic conflict between them?  Science does not tell us to believe only that which it can prove or disprove at the present, it tells us what we know we can do at present, and how to find out what else we can do.  And there is still far more we do not yet know how to do.  Perhaps, like flight, we will discover a god, or gods, through science.  Perhaps not.  You cannot say you know just because there is no evidence.  Evidence, in support or dismissal, is out there somewhere.  We just don't know which fork in the road it points down or how to find it.  Someday, we may find it.  Maybe we won't.

Truth cannot be determined by debate.  Therefore a debate on the truth of it is pointless.  Further, if it can serve a purpose as we know it now, the truth does not matter so much.  So long as it does no harm, which it is fully capable of doing.

The only debate on religion worth making is one to reduce prejudice and arrogance.
Logged
"Oh look there is a dragon my clothes might burn let me take them off and only wear steel plate."
And this is how tinned food was invented.
Alternately: The Brick Testament. It's a really fun look at what the bible would look like if interpreted literally. With Legos.
Just so I remember

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1165 on: September 03, 2009, 07:56:09 pm »

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Quote
Does the fact that many men of science before you have been religious not prove that there is no inherent conflict unless we make it?  It should.

No it shouldn't. Science is not an organization, it is a process by which truth is discovered. A person can choose to use that method in some areas and choose not to in others. The conflict can be avoided by simply not applying the method in a specific area of one's own life.

Quote
Science does not tell us to believe only that which it can prove or disprove at the present, it tells us what we know we can do at present, and how to find out what else we can do.

Science doesn't tell us anything. Science is a method, not a scripture. Science can only establish the true/false state of a proposed idea, and nothing more.

Quote
You cannot say you know just because there is no evidence.

I can say, however that I doubt. I can say that I do not have faith. I can say that I do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe an idea is true, and until I do, I will not behave under the assumption that it is.

Quote
Evidence, in support or dismissal, is out there somewhere.  We just don't know which fork in the road it points down or how to find it.  Someday, we may find it.  Maybe we won't.

And for that reason, I will continue to doubt, until I have been provided with evidence.
Logged
!!&!!

Areyar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ecstatic about recieving his own E:4 mug recently
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1166 on: September 03, 2009, 08:04:10 pm »

it is true some of those evil things you mentioned may have had good effects, most will even have originated from good intentions.

it is a fallacy to assume any scientific hypothesis to have morality. Ideally, all should be neutral.

if anything has morality it is actions, thus how an idea is used/misused is what lends it temporary moral value.


One of my more cherished moral values is that truth is good and lies are evil. I can't apologize for that if it offends you.

you are right that religion must oppose science, while science is mostly indifferent.
as the guiding principle of science is proof and revision of the 'worldmodel' according to that proof, while religion is about a 'worldmodel' that is true and proof must be edited or sensored to fit that truth.
reason vs unreason to be short
Logged
My images bucket for WIPs and such: link

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1167 on: September 03, 2009, 08:12:18 pm »

The point that science makes, is that since there is no evidence for or against a god, it "might as well" not exist. Which is good enough for atheists. There's no need to disprove it. The burden of proof is always on proving a positive, never on proving a negative, which is impossible by definition. You can't prove that a giant zebra made from ionized mesons didn't create the Universe. But it makes no sense to state that it did, because then there's an infinite amount of "theories" about the origin of the universe. God did it. The spaghetti monster did it. Monsters from another dimension did it. They don't need to be proven false. People just need to STOP making assumptions out of the blue without even trying to back them up.

I can't prove that someone didn't go to my house, broke down my door, then took its individual molecules and rebuilt it exactly as it was to the quantum level while I wasn't looking.

That, and because the only reason to think is that it exists, is... pretty much wanting it to. Historically, it was lazy thinking (or a lack of process) about trying to figure out why stuff happens (why does it rain? a god/spirit/wizard did it!).

EDIT: In other words, while I can't prove a god or whatever religious myth doesn't exist, I can figure out that whoever came up with the idea is bullshitting me.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 08:17:57 pm by Sergius »
Logged

Ampersand

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1168 on: September 03, 2009, 08:14:53 pm »

Quote
The point that science makes

Science doesn't make a point. People use the scientific method and make points.

I really want this to be clear, as I want LegoLord to respond to me directly without addressing slight contradictions in the arguments being made below my post.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 08:16:49 pm by Ampersand »
Logged
!!&!!

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #1169 on: September 03, 2009, 08:17:15 pm »

Quote
The point that science makes

Science doesn't make a point. People use the scientific method and make points.

I really want this to be clear, as I want LegoLord to respond to me directly without addressing slight contradictions in the arguments being made below my post.

Fine, it's nitpicking, but "the point that somebody that uses science makes".
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 370