Print

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

[malimbar04]

but the only example you've given fits into this. Can you perhaps give an example of something logic can't apply to, has a meaningful answer, and isn't overanalyzed gobbledygook?

The nature of God. Lots of meaningful answers there. (And I'm both too lazy to come up with a new one, or to throw Godel at you)
The hell, here it goes: give me a consistent formal effectively generated theory including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, that includes a statement of its own consistency while remaining consistent.

Nature of god is like asking to explain the wonder of a statue. "nature" as an adjective or adverb is a gobbldegook word, and means effectively "fill in the blank with whatever concept you care about", thus it has no correct answer. The answer would have to be overanalyzed, and yes, gobbldegook.

Godel... (insert wikipedia research). A theoretical mathamatician? seriously? Well my largest barriers as of right now are (a)I have no idea what a "formal effectively generated theory" is, (b) I have no idea what "truths about formal provability" are, (c) you're specifically asking for "a statment of it's own consistency while remaining consistent" otherwise known as circular logic. If I did understand those, I might give you something.

From what I read on wikipedia though, those requests are doable (even if its' circular logic). The problem comes when you want them to be complete as well.

We are considering it

I'm glad we agree (yes, I'm totally ignoring your tangent from the original question there)

Ignoring the point of the sentence, so you can take something out of context and misrepresent my opinion? Haha... alright then.

Found again here: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html

Cool, thanks! That's... logical. I guess. Except that it's probably... Unfalsifiable. Like God. Also, where do the photons go in that equation? They're energy without gravity.

I disagree that wisdom is connected to solace though. This might be a difference in our definitions of wisdom. I'd follow the version on wikipedia, which has nothing to do with comfort.

You mean the version above the "Contents" block? Because that's ones very wide and incorporates both our definitions, I think. There's a plethora of definitions and theories on that page. Let me put it this way: King Solomon was wise, Stephen Hawking isn't (or at least, not much above average).

See, I would consider Stephen Hawking as wise, and King Soloman as a fool. He may have been wise for his time and culture, but that's not saying much. Honestly, he famously solved the problem of who was the mother of a baby. what woman doesn't know the child they gave birth to? were they not paying attention? Then he used psychology to see who would be willing to kill the baby. If the women were smart they would both say "that's heartless", and the trick wouldn't have worked. I wisdom constently produces optimum results or the desired outcome, then you and I are wiser than that I would hope.

The problem is when faith interferes with science, which happens ALL the time.

Yeah, not to mention terrorists. You can't blame the interference of a few on the many. It does NOT happen all the time. There's a lot of people out there who can actually tell the difference, they're just the ones who also know how to shut up properly.

This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).

[Siquo]

Look, if you're going to continue ignoring my point and just taking a small part of a reply to attack it from a different tangent, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing. At least we agree to disagree on several definitions, which makes any further discussion of the subjects useless. So, on with the rest:

This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).

Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.

But even then, answer me, since you brought in the subject: At what age should babies still be killed?

(Yeah, I know my choice of words was mean Replace with foetus or embryo, although since the only difference between foetus and baby is an event called "birth", that line is arbitrary)

[Urist is dead tome]

I believe that a fetus is sub human. As stated in the Old Testament. The fetus is like a woman thigh.

[Supercharazad]

Also, a little known fun fact, the big bang only produced energy and hydrogen! The hydrogen clumped together to make stars, the energy made it fuse, helium and other base elements came out!

Yeah, we already covered that with the 3rd generation of stars in defending the Big Bang theory, a page or 20 ago. Fun fact: hydrogen is energy, too
But more serious: If not comprehensible, what aspects does this "primal mover" of yours have? Does it have intelligence? Is it conscious? Was there a purpose in the creation of the Big Bang? And how do you know?

Let's see...
None I know of
I don't know, maybe, maybe not
As above
As above
I do not.

Also, I make a point of not praying to any god, but I won't spit on their statues either.

[KaguroDraven]

I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.

In the most simplistic terms, yes, the Mother-Fetus relationship is parasitic, but it's also how we reproduce so it doesn't count.

[Urist is dead tome]

That's true. And to put it simply saying a fetus is a parasite is kinda cold.

My question for atheists is: Is there anyother reason to not be religious other than the obvious?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My question for atheists is: Is there any other reason to not be religious other than the obvious?

What's "the obvious"? The lack of any evidence for religious faith? The highly negitive impact and regression religion has inflicted upon society? The excluding nature of some religions that turns those in it against others? The physical and mental abuse that has the disturbing tendincy to happen in organized religion on a regular basis?

I don't know what you mean by "the obvious".

[Urist is dead tome]

Other than the fact that you don't believe in G-d.

Should have worded that better.

Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.

[Siquo]

I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.

Oh no, it's after birth that the parasitism begins. Do you have any idea what those things cost? And not just money. Time, energy, sleep, eardrums, your brand new couch. Damn.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.

Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Other than the fact that you don't believe in G-d.

Just nitpicking, but that isn't a reason to be an atheist, that's atheism verbatim.

[malimbar04]

Look, if you're going to continue ignoring my point and just taking a small part of a reply to attack it from a different tangent, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I thought I've been pretty good about fighting against every argument that you say. I also thought every tangent had the direct purpose of refuting to the best of my ability. Can someone else confirm that I'm ignoring something he said?

At least we agree to disagree on several definitions, which makes any further discussion of the subjects useless. So, on with the rest:

This isn't the interference of the few, its' the interference by anyone who believes any part. The more they believe, the more likely one of their beliefs will interfere with a line of research. For example: When are babies considered alive and just as important as 20 year old people? If you believe in the immaterial soul being the source of life, then it makes sense that all the signs of life in a fetus mean it has a soul. It's perfectly logical to think that the soul inserts as soon as the fetus starts growing even. Thus they legislate a specific lack of support for harvesting and studying these embryonic stem cells (which are generally discarded after abortions or miscarriages).

Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.

But even then, answer me, since you brought in the subject: At what age should babies still be killed?

(Yeah, I know my choice of words was mean Replace with foetus or embryo, although since the only difference between foetus and baby is an event called "birth", that line is arbitrary)

There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.

As for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.

Edit:

I believe a fetus is a parasite. Think about it, it acts exactly like a parasite, with the exception of makeing more of itself. It feeds on the mother without giveing anything in return. It ouright HARMS the mother in ways, causeing the death of the mother is not uncommon.

Oh no, it's after birth that the parasitism begins. Do you have any idea what those things cost? And not just money. Time, energy, sleep, eardrums, your brand new couch. Damn.

Haha... But they are SO worth it. If not for the whole "continuing the species" thing, then at least for entertainment value.

[Siquo]

There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.

So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)

As for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.

The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?

I'm feeling militant

[Sowelu]

My personal ethical stance, which I absolutely won't enforce on others, is that an unborn baby is purely the mother's property during the first couple of months, is both parents' through the rest of the pregnancy, and is not considered a 'person' until it is fully viable outside the womb.  Drawing its first breath is kind of a good symbolic thing.  I think that's what Judaism uses as its standard, and I interpret that as meaning "proof that it's a viable birth".  If a kid is born with a heartbeat but can't breathe on its own, and needs to be put on a ventilator, that still counts.

Third-trimester abortions are tricky.  With modern medicine, you can give birth at seven months and have the kid survive just fine.  I think that's where I truly draw the line, in the end--if you CAN take the kid out and have it survive, then it's already a person, and keeping it inside you is just a way of cutting out some very costly medical bills (as well as being good for the child anyway).  If you can't, then it's not a person yet.

[ECrownofFire]

Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.

Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Dammit, I have to link this AGAIN.

People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.