Print

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

[Askot Bokbondeler]

no, i still win, they lose, cuz their distorted views are distorted therefore contradict facts... if they disagree, they can't all be right...right? so either they are all slightly wrong, or they are all completely wrong but the one that is completely right

Slightly wrong is still mostly right man. A metaphor would be, you flip a coin a 100 times, you want heads. You get 99 heads and one tails. Are a loser?

you're missing my point, i was specifically asked for an example of situations where a religion might contradict a fact, if you accept that at least some are slightly wrong, my example is still valid

That. Is not really the point of a religion. Religions are not for evidence, but for the philosophy, that is the point of them. And, yes you can argue over the 'hard' 'facts' of a philosophy.

no, philosophy is for philosophy, religion is for mysticism and magic, with bits of science, philosophy, gastronomy, politics, etc. thrown in the middle, but all subordinated to the mystical precepts

fakeedit:screw you ninjas

[Criptfeind]

you're missing my point, i was specifically asked for an example of situations where a religion might contradict a fact, if you accept that at least some are slightly wrong, my example is still valid

Oh. I guess it was just people taking exception to the way you said it. After all, you made it seem like no one else agreed (Hey, turns out we all do) and you generally acted like a smug swearword.

no, philosophy is for philosophy, religion is for mysticism and magic, with bits of science, philosophy, gastronomy, politics, etc. thrown in the middle, but all subordinated to the mystical precepts

Do. You even.

What?

Religions are philosophy.

[ECrownofFire]

Since when did religion have to do with "mysticism and magic"? Those are spiritual beliefs, not religious.

[CoughDrop]

Name one religion WITH empirical evidence. Also notice that atheism doesn't have any empirical evidence either, right? You can argue Russel's Teapot and FSM all you want, but neither direction has any more weight to it than the other.

Yes, I know. That's why I'm agnostic. Just... a very strong agnostic. I did say that I have no proof of anything right?

Chance doesn't matter. It can't be proven or disproven, as the above example. You can't give a probability for something that doesn't even have evidence to be true at all (again, this includes atheism).

I politely disagree. If I have no proof for anything (which I truly don't) then what do I rely on?

[Criptfeind]

I politely disagree. If I have no proof for anything (which I truly don't) then what do I rely on?

Not thinking about it too hard.

[Sowelu]

Well, there went our friendly discussions about how religions actually approached science historically, and then the friendly derailment about the role of clergy in religious society.  We were even learning new words.

The "trololololo science can't prove or disprove god / religious people are intellectually dishonest" is so last year, guys.

[KaguroDraven]

Since when did religion have to do with "mysticism and magic"? Those are spiritual beliefs, not religious.

'Mysticism' was used in most 'pagan'(the collective term used most commonly for polytheistic religons from europe and the middle-east in general) religons for different forms of worship to different gods.
Magic was technicly Science/Technology/Chemestry(or Alchemy if you prefer) that no one know how it worked exactly, hell FIREWORKS where magic until someone figured out the exact reasons on how and why they worked.

[Urist is dead tome]

Gods are completely irrelevant to religion in general anyway.

I'm not buying this. There are, as you said, atheistic religions but gods are what separate religion from philosophy.

Since when did religion have to do with "mysticism and magic"? Those are spiritual beliefs, not religious.

It really depends on what religion. For example: I, a Yahwist, would say that a Wiccan does practice magic (possicbly with a "K" thrown in there), of course you probably would disagree.

[CoughDrop]

I politely disagree. If I have no proof for anything (which I truly don't) then what do I rely on?

Not thinking about it too hard.

That's a valid answer for some, though I personally do think on it quite a lot. But even then, while not thinking hard on anything, you are relying on chances for anything you believe in.

Well, there went our friendly discussions about how religions actually approached science historically, and then the friendly derailment about the role of clergy in religious society.  We were even learning new words.

The "trololololo science can't prove or disprove god / religious people are intellectually dishonest" is so last year, guys.

Hehe, someone should re-rail?

[Urist is dead tome]

Hehe, someone should re-rail?

Nope, I think this discussion is better than the original. I really did miss the religious discussions on here.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

you're missing my point, i was specifically asked for an example of situations where a religion might contradict a fact, if you accept that at least some are slightly wrong, my example is still valid

Oh. I guess it was just people taking exception to the way you said it. After all, you made it seem like no one else agreed (Hey, turns out we all do) and you generally acted like a smug swearword.

i'm not sure what you mean... i was answering urist is dead to me's post, i was under the impression that he didn't agree with me, yes, and when people started to try and take apart my example i also assumed they also disagreed with me. i may have acted like a smug swearword, it may have been intentional, but i'm not sure. i'm not quite sure i know what smug means, and the tone in which i expressed myself may not be the tone i intended to: i'm not a native english speaker, and also some nuances of spoken language do not translate well to written text

Religions are philosophy.

yes, and also gastronomy

fakeedit:ninjas, i have not read the past 5 replies
fakeedit2:make that 6

[Criptfeind]

Hehe, someone should re-rail?

Mannnnnnn whats the poiiiiint?

It will just slide back here anyway.

yes, and also gastronomy

Yeah. But mostly philosophy.

[Gearskull1]

Religion and science are looking at the same thing in different ways.

[Urist is dead tome]

i'm not sure what you mean... i was answering urist is dead to me's post, i was under the impression that he didn't agree with me,

I meant to reply earlier but, you know.

I didn't disagree with you it's just that if someone says something like that I ask them for evidence that resulted in this opinion. It's a nice little rule, you know.

[Criptfeind]

Religion and science are looking at the same thing in different ways.

Yeah. I think that. And you think that.

But how many others are going to think that with out you backing it up at least a little bit.