Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 06:51:27 pm
http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg
Post by: aes_999 on January 18, 2012, 06:54:31 pm
Really, what's with the hate with people who are religious?
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 06:55:54 pm
You do know that not every religious person does that right?
Really, what's with the hate with people who are religious?
Tell me where I said that? That is a very blatant straw man attack. I don't hate religion, I despair for the damage it does to humanity. It teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so.
Post by: nacho on January 18, 2012, 06:58:35 pm
edit: not the slightest bit religious.
Post by: aes_999 on January 18, 2012, 07:00:37 pm
its really hard sometimes to deal
with overly religious people.
But I can tell you, not everyone who's religious
is like that.
Post by: JellyDonut on January 18, 2012, 07:05:28 pm
Reposted from reddit, this is the sort of damage that religion causes in the world. A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.+100
http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg
And those are just the acts in recent times
Post by: playsimme on January 18, 2012, 07:06:49 pm
Post by: Zahta on January 18, 2012, 07:08:05 pm
Post by: Zahta on January 18, 2012, 07:10:48 pm
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 07:11:13 pm
It teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so.
That's pretty much the reason I state when people ask me why I'm a bit iffy with religion. I'm generally not very vocal about it and am quite tolerant - mostly because pretty much all of the religious people I personally know are actually lovely people, but on a larger scale it clearly causes problems. Religion is highly subjective and any prolonged argument with religious people will show this quite clearly (does 'it's not meant to be taken literally' ring a bell?). Basically, I find that anything that subjective which is applied to overrule one's innate sense of logic in decision making to be a problem waiting to happen. People often blame it saying it's not religion's fault if something bad happens, and that it's the individual's fault in a manner similar to the arguments made against computer games causing violence and whatnot. I think the distinction needs to be made that in the case of video games, the majority of people do not resort to such violence because an underlying decision making process still exists. In the case of religion though, as I've stated, this is more or less overwritten by one whose foundations are undoubtedly with good intentions, but can be skewed by subjective interpretations. When it comes to permitting such subjective interpretations, nearly anything can be justified. While perhaps over-simplified, a nice quote from Steven Weinberg is 'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.'
Post by: playsimme on January 18, 2012, 07:11:36 pm
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 07:12:29 pm
The world will always have good and bad, regardless if religion exists or not.
Refer to my quote above.
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2012, 07:14:27 pm
a nice quote from Steven Weinberg is 'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.'
that is an amazing quote
Post by: JellyDonut on January 18, 2012, 07:31:25 pm
In the case of religion though, as I've stated, this is more or less overwritten by one whose foundations are undoubtedly with good intentions, but can be skewed by subjective interpretations.
I think the problem exists because the bible places the word of god at the peak of human morality. It's hardly surprising that someone would take the violent and archaic verses of the bible as law and act on it.
Post by: matt123 on January 18, 2012, 07:46:18 pm
Reposted from reddit, this is the sort of damage that religion causes in the world. A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.
http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg
Religion when in the presence of Fanatical extremists = corruption.
Please I advise that you enlighten and broaden your knowledge of the "Baha'i Faith".
A religion which actually contradicts your statement. The Baha'i Faith is a religion based upon world peace and unity and the oneness of mankind.
If you get some spare time , I suggest you may find it an interesting Read :).
Post by: Stick on January 18, 2012, 08:22:40 pm
If we truly allowed others to live their lives as they wish and did not force our beliefs onto others, religion would not have a negative effect on society.
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 08:54:08 pm
If we truly allowed others to live their lives as they wish and did not force our beliefs onto others, religion would not have a negative effect on society.
But having a society inevitably will involve some forcing their beliefs upon others. Look at politics and such, and this is where religion mainly concerns me. Think of things like the gay marriage debate which is littered with religious justification as opposed to logic-based ones. Like you said, at a personal level, as long as people keep it to themselves it's generally fine and that's been my experience with religion personally so far.
Post by: iffets12345 on January 18, 2012, 08:56:28 pm
Post by: Stick on January 18, 2012, 08:58:37 pm
If we truly allowed others to live their lives as they wish and did not force our beliefs onto others, religion would not have a negative effect on society.
But having a society inevitably will involve some forcing their beliefs upon others. Look at politics and such, and this is where religion mainly concerns me. Think of things like the gay marriage debate which is littered with religious justification as opposed to logic-based ones. Like you said, at a personal level, as long as people keep it to themselves it's generally fine and that's been my experience with religion personally so far.
Religion should not be part of politics. People should be able to live their religious lives however they wish and should not be bound to live a life influenced by a majority faith.
Post by: Camo on January 18, 2012, 09:01:11 pm
Post by: Camo on January 18, 2012, 09:01:58 pm
If we truly allowed others to live their lives as they wish and did not force our beliefs onto others, religion would not have a negative effect on society.
But having a society inevitably will involve some forcing their beliefs upon others. Look at politics and such, and this is where religion mainly concerns me. Think of things like the gay marriage debate which is littered with religious justification as opposed to logic-based ones. Like you said, at a personal level, as long as people keep it to themselves it's generally fine and that's been my experience with religion personally so far.
Religion should not be part of politics. People should be able to live their religious lives however they wish and should not be bound to live a life influenced by a majority faith.
Just as long as it abides by the law then its ok by me.
Post by: chocolatedaddy on January 18, 2012, 09:04:55 pm
― Christopher Hitchens
Post by: chocolatedaddy on January 18, 2012, 09:05:56 pm
“The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that 'if English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Post by: Russ on January 18, 2012, 09:08:48 pm
People should be able to live their religious lives however they wish and should not be bound to live a life influenced by a majority faith.
Oh come on. I don't mind religion, but that's rubbish. Are you really saying people should be able to justify anything they do by saying "it's part of my religion". Eugh.
Post by: Stick on January 18, 2012, 09:11:25 pm
And this is where understanding comes in - we need to respect that others can live their lives differently and while you might see some sort of religious practice as 'total rubbish', it actually has some sort of meaning to them.
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 09:13:41 pm
do you take instant dislike to people with religion? (Enwiabe and Ninwa, since Shinny already said he has some lovely religious friends).
Just to clarify, my position, I'm actually not strictly against religion. Or not the entirety of it anyway. I've never really had any particularly bad experience with religion as a whole to be honest. All of what I've typed so far is really more in a conceptual and hypothetical sense as to the reasoning behind why religion seems to lead to the problems it does, from as far as I can see it anyway. On the other hand, I am also well aware of the benefits of it. Coming from a medical background, I'm well aware of the clear and proven medical benefits of it. But beyond that, on a personal level, I've seen several friends through their path of spirituality who have definitely become better people through it. I think what the quote I provided before is missing is the fact that religion can also make bad (or not as good) people do good things at the end of the day. Before I was talking about religion 'replacing' logic. Now to think about it further, I don't think it does...generally not anyway. I think it's just that essentially, religion when paired with a firm grounding in reasoning and logic is perfectly fine and rarely leads to problems. However, religion by itself without a sense of reasoning and education can be extremely dangerous as we've seen from the examples provided in the initial post.
Religion should not be part of politics. People should be able to live their religious lives however they wish and should not be bound to live a life influenced by a majority faith.
But like I said, it inevitably will be. You can tell politicians all you want that you shouldn't consider religion when making a decision, but it's inevitably going to bias their decisions.
Just as long as it abides by the law then its ok by me.
Slight error in reasoning there given that politics involves writing the laws to begin with. Don't really see how that makes sense.
Post by: Stick on January 18, 2012, 09:15:12 pm
Religion should not be part of politics. People should be able to live their religious lives however they wish and should not be bound to live a life influenced by a majority faith.
But like I said, it inevitably will be. You can tell politicians all you want that you shouldn't consider religion when making a decision, but it's inevitably going to bias their decisions.
It is unfortunate that this is true and there is little that can be done about it. :/
Post by: Camo on January 18, 2012, 09:17:05 pm
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 09:35:39 pm
Most of this judgement on religion seems to come from what the individual has experienced of religion.
The number of atrocities committed by man in the name of religion is literally uncountable throughout history, because it would be impossible to document them all. This is not "oh it's just a handful of extremists"
Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens. If it isn't beheadings and lashes like in the middle east, then it's pedophilia being covered up, or organs being trafficked like in the 1st world. This isn't anecdotal, this is a constant throughout, that religion begets moral failing.
Post by: JellyDonut on January 18, 2012, 09:40:57 pm
Good point Shinny. Well I meant shalt not murder, shall not steal, as long as a religion is abiding by socially acceptable behaviours then really there is no harm other than them believing something that cannot be scientifically proven,
Food for thought: do you think religious texts should be updated to accommodate current behaviour (sorta like the hippopotamus oaf)? For example, on the claim that heathens will suffer under the wrath of god or something. If religious/secular moderates want to push the 'live and let live' point, wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the text?
Post by: iffets12345 on January 18, 2012, 09:47:40 pm
do you take instant dislike to people with religion? (Enwiabe and Ninwa, since Shinny already said he has some lovely religious friends).
I think it's just that essentially, religion when paired with a firm grounding in reasoning and logic is perfectly fine and rarely leads to problems. However, religion by itself without a sense of reasoning and education can be extremely dangerous as we've seen from the examples provided in the initial post.
Oh, I agree with this.
Post by: Camo on January 18, 2012, 09:49:08 pm
Good point Shinny. Well I meant shalt not murder, shall not steal, as long as a religion is abiding by socially acceptable behaviours then really there is no harm other than them believing something that cannot be scientifically proven,
Food for thought: do you think religious texts should be updated to accommodate current behaviour (sorta like the hippopotamus oaf)? For example, on the claim that heathens will suffer under the wrath of god or something. If religious/secular moderates want to push the 'live and let live' point, wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to what is proposed?
To me it seems like a good idea, but I don't have indepth knowledge.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 09:54:41 pm
religion when paired with a firm grounding in reasoning and logic
That's the problem. In the words of House M.D.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
Religion is, quite simply, the rejection of logic and reason. And it is that rejection of logic and reason that results in the atrocities we see.
There is a reason why bloodshed is one of the few constants that follows religion around the world, and that is because when you make yourself unaccountable to logic and reason and to your peers, then you will undoubtedly infringe on those people and make many moral failings.
That is the reason why religion is so dangerous, because it exploits the frailties of the human condition.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 18, 2012, 09:58:38 pm
Good point Shinny. Well I meant shalt not murder, shall not steal, as long as a religion is abiding by socially acceptable behaviours then really there is no harm other than them believing something that cannot be scientifically proven,
Food for thought: do you think religious texts should be updated to accommodate current behaviour (sorta like the hippopotamus oaf)? For example, on the claim that heathens will suffer under the wrath of god or something. If religious/secular moderates want to push the 'live and let live' point, wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to what is proposed?
To me it seems like a good idea, but I don't have indepth knowledge.
People we often characterise as fundamentalist often aren't even fundamentalist to begin with (except in rare circumstances) - if they were, there's a whole bunch of random things which they'd follow (eg. the bible says that you're not allowed to wear cotton-linen mix material, not allowed to eat seafood that's not fish, etc.) which they don't. Replace the texts and they'll find something else to justify themselves on instead.
do you take instant dislike to people with religion? (Enwiabe and Ninwa, since Shinny already said he has some lovely religious friends).
I think it's just that essentially, religion when paired with a firm grounding in reasoning and logic is perfectly fine and rarely leads to problems. However, religion by itself without a sense of reasoning and education can be extremely dangerous as we've seen from the examples provided in the initial post.
Oh, I agree with this.
Third'd.
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 10:07:12 pm
Religion is, quite simply, the rejection of logic and reason. And it is that rejection of logic and reason that results in the atrocities we see.
I don't think it's quite absolute as that. I've said that religion is subjective, and this subjective interpretation is altered by one's sense of reasoning as far as I can see. If there was no logic or reasoning whatsoever, the idea and interpretation of religion would be far more universal. Many of these atrocities you speak of come from times or places now which are not privileged with education. I don't really see such atrocities happening anywhere near as much in our more civilised world, except when you look at redneck communities like Westboro Baptist Church, and then the idea of education's impact upon interpretation of religion becomes much clearer.
Post by: Incommensura on January 18, 2012, 10:13:48 pm
Point two, other things are seriously lacking in logic also. I don't catch a tram because I'm grounded in the knowledge of physics and electrical engineering that makes it work. I just kind of trust that it does. So many 'facts' that people quote (probably the inverted commas are unjustified because they mostly are facts) are unverified by the people quoting them. People say the earth is round, but so what? I have no way of checking that and no special reason to believe the people who say it.
The point of which is not to suggest that the earth isn't round or that you shouldn't believe it. Just that all the other claims and beliefs people hold up as being better than religious ones, aren't necessarily. Even the scientists who actually do the work are operating on faith as anyone familiar with the problem of induction will be aware. So there's nothing wrong with religion on a logical level.
But since we're fetishising logic as the ultimate way to sort stuff out, people should probably be careful of the old "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. Famous example: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/139092366_ce5b410228_o.jpg
That of course demonstrates a whole lot of other stuff than the point I'm making, but principally - correlation is not the same as causation. So the fact that there has been a lot of bad stuff done by religions is NOT equivalent to the claim that "religion begets moral failure" or whatever people were saying above. Not that that doesn't beg questions about morality and law and stuff, since religion is one of the 'best' providers of a clearcut morality it's pretty hard to judge it against another underdefined moral standard.
If anyone can show an actual logical causal link between religion and bad stuff, then power to you... but you probably can't. In the meantime complaining about religion is a case of mis-collating qualities which is one of my pet hates and not worth explaining here - but down to brass tacks, let's just say that bad stuff is bad, religion is religion and that's that.
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 10:21:01 pm
If anyone can show an actual logical causal link between religion and bad stuff, then power to you...
What about crusades and suicide bombers and such who have been attributed by the individuals involved to be performed in the name of their 'lord'? Not sure what level of proof you want here exactly, but that's enough for my set of logic at least.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/139092366_ce5b410228_o.jpg
STOP GLOBAL WARMING; BREED PIRATES.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 10:32:23 pm
her underdefined moral standard.
If anyone can show an actual logical causal link between religion and bad stuff, then power to you... but you probably can't.
I'll demonstrate it for you easily.
1) People make their decisions according to their morals.
2) Some people choose to use religion as the source of their morality
3) A person who derives their morality from religion believes their morality is divine
4) Their morality is therefore unanswerable to their peers, only to the supreme arbiter who gave them these morals
Under these circumstances, you can convince yourself that anything is good, moral behaviour. If the text of your religion says it is your duty to kill those who refuse to believe, then in your mind you are doing the work of a supreme, divine being. You are unanswerable to your peers, only to this imaginary "god".
Obviously, most humans naturally want to avoid conflict, so they will tend to not convince themselves that this is what 'god' wants, but provided you are answering only to an imaginary being, you can pick and choose whatever morals you like and they are unshakeable because hey, they're what god wants.
But in that moment, this person becomes god. How do you know what god wants? How do you know what god specifically wants you to do? You've specifically chosen those morals for yourself that you'd like to follow, and then justified them by saying "well god said so" but it wasn't actually god. It was simply you, pretending to be god.
And that is a very powerful recipe for moral disaster. I challenge you to rebuff that, as that is how all moral religious failing occurs.
And if we remove that precept, that god exists and is powerful, then the whole thing falls to pieces. Then your morality must be grounded in reality and must reflect the values of humanism.
When you get people to question that leap of "god told me to do it" and replace it with logical morality (which, despite sounding cold actually includes large amounts of empathy and compassion) then you get a society progressing towards positive change. You'll be hard pressed to find any society that was worse off because their inhabitants became more reasonable. You don't have to think for longer than 5 seconds to find societies that were destroyed by the sudden onset of religious frenzy.
Post by: JellyDonut on January 18, 2012, 10:41:38 pm
Just that all the other claims and beliefs people hold up as being better than religious ones, aren't necessarily.Well, scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others. I don't think you can do really do that with religious claims. Sure, there is still an element of faith regardless, but the leap wouldn't be as big as a religious one (?)
Post by: funkyducky on January 18, 2012, 11:13:44 pm
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2012, 11:17:27 pm
Most of this judgement on religion seems to come from what the individual has experienced of religion. I've seen a few of these on VN although I am rarely on, and the passion in the anti-religion posts is almost as bad as the religious extremists. If any of you have read Hunger Games, it's like how Alma Coin's extremes are just as bad as President Snow's. Out of curiosity, do you take instant dislike to people with religion? (Enwiabe and Ninwa, since Shinny already said he has some lovely religious friends).
No, why would I dislike religious people / where on earth did you get that impression? I have several very religious friends. I do not talk about this with them because it's never come up. However, I know at least one of them is anti-choice re: abortion because of their religion, so if that topic comes up, I will not restrain myself from telling them that they are wrong.
As for "almost as bad as religious extremists", are you actually serious? Do you wanna maybe actually justify those claims? No, you won't, because you cannot.
I don't even... these pictures sum it up:
(http://religionnerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/militant-atheist1.jpg)
(http://scrwmedia.com/ufj/files/2011/05/Atheist-pope.gif)
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2012, 11:20:38 pm
Quote
Point two, other things are seriously lacking in logic also. I don't catch a tram because I'm grounded in the knowledge of physics and electrical engineering that makes it work. I just kind of trust that it does. So many 'facts' that people quote (probably the inverted commas are unjustified because they mostly are facts) are unverified by the people quoting them. People say the earth is round, but so what? I have no way of checking that and no special reason to believe the people who say it.
How is that in any way a valid analogy? There is solid scientific evidence for the principles of engineering which allow the operation of trams. Which you CAN check for yourself. And yes of course it's possible to check that the earth is round. Are you serious?
Quote
The point of which is not to suggest that the earth isn't round or that you shouldn't believe it. Just that all the other claims and beliefs people hold up as being better than religious ones, aren't necessarily. Even the scientists who actually do the work are operating on faith as anyone familiar with the problem of induction will be aware. So there's nothing wrong with religion on a logical level.
The difference is: science has evidence backing it up, religion has zero.
Quote
But since we're fetishising logic as the ultimate way to sort stuff out, people should probably be careful of the old "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. Famous example: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/139092366_ce5b410228_o.jpg
That of course demonstrates a whole lot of other stuff than the point I'm making, but principally - correlation is not the same as causation. So the fact that there has been a lot of bad stuff done by religions is NOT equivalent to the claim that "religion begets moral failure" or whatever people were saying above. Not that that doesn't beg questions about morality and law and stuff, since religion is one of the 'best' providers of a clearcut morality it's pretty hard to judge it against another underdefined moral standard.
Yeah okay you can spout all the fancy latin terms you want but that doesn't prove anything. See enwiabe's post above
Post by: Aurelian on January 18, 2012, 11:28:55 pm
Tell me where I said that? That is a very blatant straw man attack. I don't hate religion, I despair for the damage it does to humanity. It teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so.
Unfortunately this is simply untrue, and demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of the notion of religion as a whole, as well as an ignorance of a great number of religions which do exist in the world. While I cannot deny that there do exist a great number of religious fanatics whose actions are extreme and unforgivable, and whose minds are damaged beyond repair, to generalise that religion "teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so" is simply disgusting.
Consider Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taosim, and a number of other more obscure eastern traditions which do not have the monotheistic approach of Western/Middle-Eastern religions. These can hardly be classed in the category into which you have recklessly classed all religion. Even within the likes of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to imply that all those who follow these traditions are mindless zombies following a literal interpretation of their sacred text is misguided and unfair. The issue of "reason and religion" I wont address now, intending to address it later in this post, so I'll just address the moral aspect.
Sure, some people think they have a god-given right to stone women for adultery in Iran. But others think they have a god-given right to equality. Martin Luther King Jnr - God, he was even *named* after a religious figure. Do you think his religion did not play a substantial role in fueling his moral quest? Mother Teresa? How about Gandhi? Religion may spur immorality, but on the very contrary, were it not for some transcendental belief in greater morality, as found in religion, so much moral progress would never have been made. Perhaps, you may argue, the progress would not need to have been made in the first place if religion weren't around - but this is irrelevant; the point here is simply to realise that religion can just as much be a source for good as for bad.
To conclude my first objection, I simply attack your generalization. I imagine you will concede this and clarify yourself.
That's the problem. In the words of House M.D.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
Religion is, quite simply, the rejection of logic and reason. And it is that rejection of logic and reason that results in the atrocities we see.
Quite frankly, this just causes me to despair. This is by far the worst aspect of militant atheism – the idea that reason (or at least your perverted robotic conception of reason) holds the key to everything, and that religion, being devoid of reason, is therefore always inferior to scientifically based disbelief.
The atheists belief in science, as I suspect we will find out if this thread continues, is generally far more irrational than they would like to believe. In contrast, to firstly take an empirical approach, religion is far less irrational than the atheist would portray it to be.
Rene Descartes. George Berkeley. Thomas Aquinas. Who are these people, and what do they all have in common? For one, they were all devout Christians. But what else are they? They are all philosophers – the champions of reason. Logic is the principal tool of these individuals. To claim that all religious thought is a “rejection of logic and reason” is blatantly false. Again, the generalization here is unforgivable.
Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.
There is also a big issue with the idea that it is this supposed rejection which leads to these atrocities, or rather more with the implied notion that morality is best wrought from reason. This, however, I suspect will also be fleshed out more explicitly later, so I will hold my tongue for now.
Well, scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others. I don't think you can do really do that with religious claims. Sure, there is still an element of faith regardless, but the leap wouldn't be as big as a religious one (?)
“Scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others.” This is a bold, but a fairly typical one for a scientist. For now I will even be generous and grant the validity of sense experience and epistemological empiricism (though such generosity is unwarranted), and merely introduce a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Wherever you attept to “confirm” a hypothesis you are committing just this.
If A then B. B, therefore A. This is the fallacy. This is what you do when you “confirm” some scientific theory.
Here’s where the fallacy is obvious;
If I am a cat, then I have four legs.
I have four legs, therefore I am a cat.
Here’s where the scientists get confused;
If x theory gravity is true, then this apple will fall to the ground
This apple falls to the ground (not just once, but every time and for everyone! Consensus!)
Therefore, x theory of gravity is true
I wont elaborate on this now, since Karl Popper does a far better job than I. I advise people check him out; Popper, Karl, Chapter 1, “Science: Conjectures and Refutations in Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge Classics, Reoutledge, 2002, pp. 43-51.
This is just one of the grave assaults against reason which scientists so often commit, but is sufficient for now. Falsification also has its problems but ceebs until it actually comes up.
Additionally, how, may I ask, are you quantifying the magnitude of the leaps at play here – and what is your justification that a scientific leap of faith is greater than a religious one? Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.
I have a lot more to say but I think this post is getting a bit too long. I'd also like to address the post enwiabe made in response to Incommensura, but it's too long so I'll do it tomorrow.
For now I'll just close with this:
Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion. You might see yourselves as a 'champion of reason', but you are far from it, I assure you. You are blinded by your pathological need to quantify your world - this is just as equivalent an existential response as that of the fundamentalist Christian. You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.
Unfortunately, however, such militant atheists are rarely able to see the error of their ways. Just like fundamentalists, they can generally never be persuaded; they are simply to blind, too dogmatic.
I am not endorsing religious fundamentalism; I wholeheartedly agree that it is a frightening thing. I do not even believe in 'God' in any conventional sense. But I argue that *this* kind of militant atheism is not much better. Critical thinking is wonderful - but this is just not it.
Someone said earlier that perhaps religion is no longer needed in today's society, only originating in order to explain then unexplainable phenomena. To a degree this is fair, as to a degree this is what much of religion was concerned with a long time ago. Hence, it is reasonable to concede that many, many aspects of most religions are now redundant, and perhaps could be done away with, so as to minimise the frightening and dangerous adherence to fundamentalism we see around the world. However, while certain aspects of religions perhaps ought to disappear, the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.
Also, @ funkyducky, Buddhism is amazing <3333
PS: People have probably posted while I was typing all this so... yeah D=
Post by: Aurelian on January 18, 2012, 11:34:26 pm
As for "almost as bad as religious extremists", are you actually serious? Do you wanna maybe actually justify those claims? No, you won't, because you cannot.
Note to self, address this later.
QuotePoint two, other things are seriously lacking in logic also. I don't catch a tram because I'm grounded in the knowledge of physics and electrical engineering that makes it work. I just kind of trust that it does. So many 'facts' that people quote (probably the inverted commas are unjustified because they mostly are facts) are unverified by the people quoting them. People say the earth is round, but so what? I have no way of checking that and no special reason to believe the people who say it.
How is that in any way a valid analogy? There is solid scientific evidence for the principles of engineering which allow the operation of trams. Which you CAN check for yourself. And yes of course it's possible to check that the earth is round. Are you serious?
This is perfectly valid, and what Incommensura is alluding to is something called the problem of induction... I'd send you to wiki but it's blacked out lol
The difference is: science has evidence backing it up, religion has zero.
This is misleading; the "evidence" of science is far less sturdy that most people think.
Yeah okay you can spout all the fancy latin terms you want but that doesn't prove anything. See enwiabe's post above
These "fancy latin terms" are quite appropriate; enwiabe commited a formal fallacy, latin or otherwise...
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:36:42 pm
Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion.
I can take your pseudo-intellectual rant apart by simply nailing down that one statement.
And I'll do it with an imgur picture :)
http://i.imgur.com/oVXez.jpg
You focus far too much on the ad hominem, your tirade centres largely on your perceived problem with me, and not my arguments.
The following carries a major bullshit alert:
Quote
Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable
You have just said logic is something which cannot be explained.
There are no words for that kind of pseudo-intellectual pomposity that can adequately describe how incredibly stupid that entire paragraph was.
Post by: Menang on January 18, 2012, 11:38:08 pm
If I understand Enwiabe's post correctly, he's saying that in the case of religious people
1. Religion is founded on the premise that God exists, and is the only Being that we are answerable to.
2. Morality is founded on religion.
3. Decisions are founded on morality.
Thus our decisions are only answerable to God, and not our peers.
While this fact may seem disconcerting, it is only really problematic if the decisions made (that are answerable to God) are harmful ones.
To quote enwiabe:
Quote
“Under these circumstances, you can convince yourself that anything is good, moral behaviour. If the text of your religion says it is your duty to kill those who refuse to believe, then in your mind you are doing the work of a supreme, divine being. You are unanswerable to your peers, only to this imaginary "god".”
These circumstances, I assume, would be the fact that decisions are answerable to a “being” that may or may not exist depending on who you ask.
Quote
“Obviously, most humans naturally want to avoid conflict, so they will tend to not convince themselves that this is what 'god' wants, but provided you are answering only to an imaginary being, you can pick and choose whatever morals you like and they are unshakeable because hey, they're what god wants...
But in that moment, this person becomes god. How do you know what god wants? How do you know what god specifically wants you to do? You've specifically chosen those morals for yourself that you'd like to follow, and then justified them by saying "well god said so" but it wasn't actually god. It was simply you, pretending to be god.”
The implication I’m hearing from this is that religious belief allows for an arbitrary “pick and choose” of morals (ie the classic “I’ll ignore the bit about pig skins but wholeheartedly support the homosexuality is wrong bit” argument). While this may apply to some people, I believe it doesn’t for the majority of religious believers.
To clarify, I’m defending Christianity, not the concept of religion itself.
1. Christians base their morality on the Bible, trusting it as the Word of God.
2. Theologians (and therefore Christians who listen to said theologians) have generally interpreted the Bible in two parts.
(a) The Old Testament: an account of people’s relationship with God before the birth of Jesus
(b) The New Testament: an account of people’s relationship with God after the birth of Jesus.
Basically, there’s a set of rules for when there was no Jesus, and a different set of rules for when there is Jesus. Some call this inconsistency, I prefer the phrase “natural consequence of grace”.
3. Christians living in any sort of AD year will generally follow the set of rules under the “with Jesus” category.
And that’s that. There is no “picking and choosing of morals” and we are not god ourselves. We remain answerable to God, and even to earthly authority (iirc, the Bible has verses which remind Christians that they are to respect the leaders God as put in place on earth).
Look, to me, personally, as a Christian, my life is based primarily on a relationship with God, not a set of rules. The Bible is an extension of the relationship. Yes, it contains a lot of “do’s and don’t’s” but Christians have a different perspective on that - these rules help us live the way God wants us to.
Enwiabe’s conclusion that living by religious morality is a recipe for moral disaster hinges on the premises that (a) God is imaginary and (b) religious people tend to pick and choose which parts of their religion to follow.
Aside from the fact that using “God is imaginary” as a premise to prove that God is imaginary is obviously circular, I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:40:10 pm
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2012, 11:40:33 pm
Quote
Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.
You are essentially saying "you are wrong, but I refuse to explain why you are wrong".
Quote
Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.
I'd like to see you explain this.
Quote
You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.
Fundamental misunderstanding of atheism/rationalism. We do not believe that science holds all the answers; far from it. However, I believe that the current state of scientific progress is the best possible explanation we have until evidence arises to the contrary.
It is the religious who are so afraid of things that they cannot explain that they latch on to any explanation they can find - in this case, "God did it, God has his own reasons for shitty things happening".
Quote
However, while certain aspects of religions perhaps ought to disappear, the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.
Why?
You've made a lot of blanket statements here and very few actual explanations.
Post by: Menang on January 18, 2012, 11:43:34 pm
Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
Post by: shinny on January 18, 2012, 11:43:52 pm
I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.
Quote from: Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Clearly not following that now are you? :P But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.
Post by: kamil9876 on January 18, 2012, 11:44:44 pm
literally uncountable
Any bigger than
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:45:21 pm
Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
Er, what?
Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:46:10 pm
literally uncountable
Any bigger thantho? (sorry, couldn't help it).
They would obviously be countable if they were all documented, sure :P
Post by: aes_999 on January 18, 2012, 11:48:12 pm
Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
Er, what?
Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.
Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:49:45 pm
Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
Er, what?
Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.
Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.
OT is still canon. Jesus is the extension of Judaism. Or, Judaism++
It was still the same god...
Post by: Aurelian on January 18, 2012, 11:50:48 pm
Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion.
I can take your pseudo-intellectual rant apart by simply nailing down that one statement.
And I'll do it with an imgur picture :)
http://i.imgur.com/oVXez.jpg
You focus far too much on the ad hominem, your tirade centres largely on your perceived problem with me, and not my arguments.
That's another thing I don't like, when people pull the ad hominem line where it is not warranted - especially when they use it as an excuse not to address comprehensive counter-arguments.
The following carries a major bullshit alert:QuoteFurthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable
You have just said logic is something which cannot be explained.
There are no words for that kind of pseudo-intellectual pomposity that can adequately describe how incredibly stupid that entire paragraph was.
Pseudo-intellectual pomposity? Tell that to Plato, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. And yeah, fully aware I just 'appealed to authority', but if you're going to call me stupid, at least be aware who else you're calling stupid.
There is really no point in attempting to argue with someone like you. As I have said, in that respect, you are no better than any dogmatic religious adherent. I didn't really expect any other kind of response, but EZ egged me on haha. I am disappointed though that you wouldn't attempt to defend your reasoning against mine. I even granted you empiricism - we would've argued on your own terms!
Either way, if I pushed the matter, my prediction for this debate would be that your poorly defined terms would be constantly reassessed by yourself, until such a time where they become defined in such a way that your contention becomes trivially true. Then you'd probably say you won...
EDIT: Man, 9 new replies when I was typing... >_>
Oh also, nina, philosophy 101 student. I lol'd.
Post by: Thu Thu Train on January 18, 2012, 11:51:47 pm
I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.Quote from: Timothy 2:12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Clearly not following that now are you? :P But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.
I'd like to point out that this isn't "God's word" as shinny seems to think it is. It's a letter from Paul to Timothy and these are Paul's guidelines, not God's.
Post by: enwiabe on January 18, 2012, 11:53:18 pm
Post by: Menang on January 18, 2012, 11:56:41 pm
Thanks, aes_999. :)Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
Er, what?
Have you... read... the story of Isaac? You clearly haven't read the bible. God tells PLENTY of people to kill other people. This includes genocides, fratricide etc. It's pretty fucking horrific.
Umm, just saying, menang (or win in indo) did say that she's clearly following the rules
of the New Testament. Isaac's story was in the Old testament.
Everything in the Bible was written or recorded within a context and to fully appreciate it takes a lot of study, and I (or anyone else, for the matter) don't make any claims about knowing it fully and completely. There are obvious things we live by (Jesus' sermon on the mount, for example). That doesn't mean we ignore everything else, though, but merely that we take context into account. To answer shinny:
Historically, that example was written by Paul to a specific church where the women were being excessive in speaking in tongues to the point where it was distracting others from working/worshipping. I haven't studied enough of theology to know the full story, but it was a letter written to a specific church in a specific situation. I truly believe that in that context, Timothy was right in what he wrote.I maintain that the Bible is not just something we pick and choose from. It’s a way of life I believe in unwaveringly.Quote from: Timothy 2:12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Clearly not following that now are you? :P But seriously, I can't see how Christians and the like are not picking and choosing at what they follow. There's just one example. Plenty more of others in there too which are obviously not followed.
If the same thing happened in a 21st century church (which it has, many times), I would support silence on however was talking too loud in church, to solve the issue, too. Jussayin. :P
Post by: JellyDonut on January 19, 2012, 12:04:38 am
My understanding of the fallacy came from this story but since it led to infinite regress, I didn't (and still don't) know how to refute it. Felt sort of like dead end.Well, scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others. I don't think you can do really do that with religious claims. Sure, there is still an element of faith regardless, but the leap wouldn't be as big as a religious one (?)If A then B. B, therefore A. This is the fallacy. This is what you do when you “confirm” some scientific theory.
http://paradox.wikia.com/wiki/What_the_tortoise_said_to_achilles
Quote
Additionally, how, may I ask, are you quantifying the magnitude of the leaps at play here – and what is your justification that a scientific leap of faith is greater than a religious one? Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.Well, my line of thought was that scientific proofs are in a sense, universal in that it could be repeated elsewhere and still hold consistent (eg. the theory of evolution does not just change depending on location). On the other hand, religious claims can vary according to culture. A christian idea of god differs from that of a norse one. I guess I can't really quantify the leaps but the former point seems a lot more rigorous then the latter.
I'd appreciate an explanation or some resources as I don't have any grounding in philosophy
Post by: Aurelian on January 19, 2012, 12:07:14 am
Quote
You are essentially saying "you are wrong, but I refuse to explain why you are wrong".Yeah pretty much. There's really no way for me to explain it which would make you understand what I mean... This is why I don't generally enter these debates, because atheists yell at me for not having reasons.
Quote
QuoteQuite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.
I'd like to see you explain this.
Qualia n' stuff. Pretty ceebs atm doing that though. I'll send you an actual essay in PM if you want...
Quote
Fundamental misunderstanding of atheism/rationalism. We do not believe that science holds all the answers; far from it. However, I believe that the current state of scientific progress is the best possible explanation we have until evidence arises to the contrary.
Could you please justify your reasoning for particularly that last bit :)
Quote
QuoteHowever, while certain aspects of religions perhaps ought to disappear, the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.
Why?
Telos and all that jazz. Trololololol. Unfortunately I can't answer that 'why' without explaining quite a lot of other stuff as well... And I think I've filled my quota of tl;dr posts tonight :P
Quote
You've made a lot of blanket statements here and very few actual explanations.
Hmmm I think that's an unfair statement considering I had quite a bit of your kind of reasoning in there, but yeah I'll admit there are a few of them. Ask specific questions and I'd be happy to answer them (if I can succinctly!).
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 12:09:59 am
There are obvious things we live by (Jesus' sermon on the mount, for example). That doesn't mean we ignore everything else, though, but merely that we take context into account.
How do you know what to observe and what not to observe? Are you claiming you actually know which parts God really wanted you to adhere to? Congrats, you just became god!
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 19, 2012, 12:11:16 am
Quote
QuoteAdditionally, how, may I ask, are you quantifying the magnitude of the leaps at play here – and what is your justification that a scientific leap of faith is greater than a religious one? Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.Well, my line of thought was that scientific proofs are in a sense, universal in that it could be repeated elsewhere and still hold consistent (eg. the theory of evolution does not just change depending on location). On the other hand, religious claims can vary according to culture. A christian idea of god differs from that of a norse one. I guess I can't really quantify the leaps but the former point seems a lot more rigorous then the latter.
I'd appreciate an explanation or some resources as I don't have any grounding in philosophy
Scientific theories change and are adapted all the time, and there are certainly different schools in science which hold theories in different lights. Unless you mean God specifically, in which case this is null, in that the Norse don't even have 'God', they have a bunch of deities (translated into English as 'gods') called Thor, Odin, Loki, etc.
Post by: Aurelian on January 19, 2012, 12:12:50 am
Aurelian, there's no reason for me to argue with you. The only reason you argue is for grandeur and for show. You're very self-aggrandising, very pretentious. You make the most ridiculous fluff statements I've ever seen. You're not the kind of person I'm looking to engage with on this matter, because I don't want to get into a mental masturbation contest with you. I have no doubt you'd win easily. :)
Oh wow... I honestly do feel sorry for you =/ You honestly can't see how what you just said is a demonstration of the grossest dogmatism? Not to mention a somewhat immature one as well...
I do object though to your attempting to assume my motivations for debating. I argue only for 'grandeur and show'? I'm not sure how you can really make that claim. Usually when I 'argue', I do so for the sake of Truth. But unfortunately I'm not perfect, and in this instance I just argued because I got angry. I never really intended on convincing anyone of anything.
And for the record, I'm pretty aware that when I argue for my own actual opinions I do look stupid and unreasonable to a good deal of people... So no, not for 'grandeur and show', - I'd be doing a pretty bad job of it if my intention was merely to seem 'rational'!
Post by: shinny on January 19, 2012, 12:18:29 am
I'd like to point out that this isn't "God's word" as shinny seems to think it is. It's a letter from Paul to Timothy and these are Paul's guidelines, not God's.
Point taken. Is there a means of defining which parts definitively constitute 'God's word' then? Isn't it all essentially written by hearsay? I imagine that it would be made clear somehow (e.g. like for the Ten Commandments), but I'm just making sure because I'm not the most well informed with it comes to religion to be honest. Thought I'd jump in to this debate to hopefully learn something for once instead of just ignoring another religious debate for once.
There are obvious things we live by (Jesus' sermon on the mount, for example). That doesn't mean we ignore everything else, though, but merely that we take context into account.
But doesn't taking 'context' into account involve one's own reasoning and logic? I don't assume there are Bible verses that can guide the entirety of this step. This is precisely the point I was trying to suggest - that religion is subjectively interpreted through one's own logic, and hence can lead to bad things in the uneducated. But yeh, regarding context, a simple example would be the morality of illegally pirating music. Stealing is wrong according to the Bible, but there's many Christians who would be happy to do this. Often people justify by the fact that the owner of that material isn't really losing anything, as it's digitally replicated and you wouldn't have bought it anyway. You could say this is where context comes in, but I don't imagine there's a definitive way to interpret the Bible such that you could supply an answer whether it's right or wrong in our modern society. Even if you argue that the Bible definitely says to not steal and that's that, well clearly there's others who don't see it the same way. But yeh, once again, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise that religion really can be understood in a universal way.
Post by: nacho on January 19, 2012, 12:25:33 am
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..
Post by: jane1234 on January 19, 2012, 12:27:48 am
Why i hate religious debates:
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..
And when this thread is locked we will still be at A.
Post by: Thu Thu Train on January 19, 2012, 12:29:39 am
I'd like to point out that this isn't "God's word" as shinny seems to think it is. It's a letter from Paul to Timothy and these are Paul's guidelines, not God's.
Point taken. Is there a means of defining which parts definitively constitute 'God's word' then? Isn't it all essentially written by hearsay? I imagine that it would be made clear somehow (e.g. like for the Ten Commandments), but I'm just making sure because I'm not the most well informed with it comes to religion to be honest. Thought I'd jump in to this debate to hopefully learn something for once instead of just ignoring another religious debate for once.
Genesis->Exodus->Leviticus->Numbers->Deuteronomy = "God's Word" then further along we have crazies who say "GOD CAME TO ME IN A DREAM AND SAID THIS" (prophets) which makes up a lot of the old testament. As far as I was taught everything after Gospels(Matthew/Mark/Luke/John) are bases for the "construction"/running of the new Christian church that came about after Jesus sent his disciples out and so they were included in the bible in-case anyone wanted to dispute anyone. A lot of the books in the new testament are "letters" to apostles with an outline on how they should teach God's word. Anything in the new testament that is "God's Word" comes from the Gospels where Jesus actually lay down the law and re-wrote most of the old testaments laws.
Disclaimer: I'm not religious I just went to a religious school and this is what I was taught.
Post by: burbs on January 19, 2012, 12:32:30 am
Just trying to diffuse the tension.
Post by: nacho on January 19, 2012, 12:37:30 am
and so the cycle continues on forever until i finally disprove both religion and atheism :)Why i hate religious debates:
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..
And when this thread is locked we will still be at A.
Post by: shinny on January 19, 2012, 12:40:54 am
Genesis->Exodus->Leviticus->Numbers->Deuteronomy = "God's Word"
There's still some pretty crazy stuff even in those though. More so, I don't see how even context affects some of these at all. Example:
Quote from: Leviticus 20:9
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
My personal favourite is one that enwiabe ironically seems to follow
Quote from: Leviticus 19:27
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Post by: Mech on January 19, 2012, 12:42:44 am
The majority of religious believers are holding onto premises that are formally, by the consensus of academics and the most learned of subjects (however dubiously we want to treat the scientific disciplines), to be absolute bunkum. To assert an agent took it upon itself to allow all entities to exist and handpicked the transmission of blatantly defective alleles as an act of benevolence should bring up some qualms about the soundness of these premises. You want to come to the conclusion a deity exists and is benevolent (which you can do by the tool of logic) and then look around at the world you live in. Each permutation of most monotheistic faiths is an attempt at an absolute normative model that threatens people who live in a dynamic reality. It abandons well-supported, rigorously tested and reputable information from being incorporated into people's moral considerations because it proves contrary to the incantations of some addle nomads from Mesopotamia.
The antitheist movement has not been waged against spirituality by all its proponents; for example, Sam Harris practices many rituals associated to Eastern faith and argues that emotional awareness, or spirituality, is a part of the neurobiology of humans. Additionally, people like the vociferous Christopher Hitchens claims that we have this form of need of meaning and value and it can be define as spirituality; however, Richard Dawkins remains seemingly sceptical of such a proposition. Firstly, you are attacking the antitheist movements as being grounded on flaunting or championing reason. This is true in the sense that it believes an empirical dissection of reality leaves the question of an intelligent agent creating all entities to be, at best, deistic (if some form of deity exists, he is indifferent or uncaring; this is in staunch opposition to the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent concoction many extoll). Secondly, many antitheists are aware that violence and the like is inherently a part of the psychology of man; we are apes of sorts with a bigger cerebral cortex and have the ability to keep our history of bloodshed. However, the argument is that the absolutist nature of the model monotheistic faiths preach, is that it subverts reputable consideration of reality by science, denies the origins of man or the biodiversity of the planet and totes a very distinctly controversial substance dualism in regards to an afterlife – this afterlife subordinates the only defensibly existent life we live now; see Nietzsche’s amor fati argument.
The status of science is an interesting topic. We can tell by Kuhn’s model that it takes a crisis and the weakening of a theory by ad hoc or auxiliary theories to be a sign for the scientific community to re-evaluate the presuppositions of their disciplines. This is all true. Scientific theories are tentative theses; they are there to coincide with the revelation of more details by findings. I do not think science has a telos (an ultimate goal) that is “truth”; I think it seeks to be a problem-solver and to help humanity develop. This is a very evolutionary view of science, which accommodates the possible falsity of all models of science (something religion does not do with their models). Many therefore reject religion because it stunts this problem solving; think of the example of stem cell research and also think about how difficult fundamentalist lobbies protest abortion and try and argue living entities devoid of preference fit into a preference utilitarian model (they assume fertilized eggs want to be alive and assume foetuses want to be born, despite the fact they lack capacity for such at a certain stage of development with re: to foetuses). However, we have to listen to spiels about the sanctity of life as people die from potentially curable diseases, people who fit into the utilitarian preference model our legal system seems to be based on with regards to rights.
I would also like to state that I am not wishing anything against religious folk or even condemning their morality in entirety. I just wish to clarify some of the rationale behind the rejection of religion and why it seems so lacking in coinciding with the evolution of information that science seems to be fulfilling. It also allows for some atrocities to be committed that may not have been committed if this information was considered and the absolutist zeitgeist of nomads from the past abandoned for something a little bit more avant garde than adamic sin, serpentine meddling and wonderfully repressive views of sexuality.
Post by: Thu Thu Train on January 19, 2012, 12:46:12 am
I never said there wasn't ridiculous and crazy stuff in there :P I was just making sure you weren't trying to pass off not-God's Word as God's Word!Genesis->Exodus->Leviticus->Numbers->Deuteronomy = "God's Word"
There's still some pretty crazy stuff even in those though. More so, I don't see how even context affects some of these at all. Example:Quote from: Leviticus 20:9For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
My personal favourite is one that enwiabe ironically seems to followQuote from: Leviticus 19:27Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Post by: shinny on January 19, 2012, 12:47:06 am
I never said there wasn't ridiculous and crazy stuff in there :P I was just making sure you weren't trying to pass off not-God's Word as God's Word!Genesis->Exodus->Leviticus->Numbers->Deuteronomy = "God's Word"
There's still some pretty crazy stuff even in those though. More so, I don't see how even context affects some of these at all. Example:Quote from: Leviticus 20:9For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
My personal favourite is one that enwiabe ironically seems to followQuote from: Leviticus 19:27Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Yeh, wasn't trying to get at you. More so just correcting my previous example with a better example thanks to your correction I guess. My previous post still stands!
Post by: Jdog on January 19, 2012, 12:49:45 am
Post by: Menang on January 19, 2012, 12:50:05 am
Ahahaha. :DGenesis->Exodus->Leviticus->Numbers->Deuteronomy = "God's Word"
There's still some pretty crazy stuff even in those though. More so, I don't see how even context affects some of these at all. Example:Quote from: Leviticus 20:9For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
My personal favourite is one that enwiabe ironically seems to followQuote from: Leviticus 19:27Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Just pointing out that these rules are pre-Jesus. The general consensus is that there were lots of wacky-rules pre-Jesus because the Israelites needed them or something. I can't remember.
Regarding the "stealing/piracy" one, I actually think downloading copyrighted music and movies isn't the best thing to be doing, morally, but it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. :P So I do it, but I know it's wrong and I don't try to justify it using religion or otherwise.
There are subtleties to approaching the Bible, things like taking the Old Testament for it's historical accuracy but recognizing that the Books of Law was intended for a time where no Jesus = no grace. But the main thing, that requires no intellectual theology or historical contextualisation, is also what the average practicing Christian will think of when we think of religion. It's basically, people do bad things, God sends Jesus to die for us, Jesus gives us grace, and we try to be as much like Jesus as possible.
Religion, to me, is not denying rationality or an insurance from hell or a set of rules. It's having a relationship with God and striving to be like Jesus, and that's the crux of it. I can't see how this is detrimental to society. I understand this is a personal view, but it's a view that's shared by most, if not all, Christians I know. Yes, there are extremists, but I think there's a lot of good to religion that goes unrecognised.
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 12:52:15 am
The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.
He made ad hominem attacks against me, so I served him back some of his own medicine and told him what I thought of him. A bit harsh, perhaps, but nothing abusive.
Post by: nacho on January 19, 2012, 12:56:38 am
Why i hate religious debates:
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..
The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.What i said was wrong, we actually move backwards in religious debates
Post by: Mech on January 19, 2012, 12:57:00 am
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 19, 2012, 12:59:49 am
The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.
He made ad hominem attacks against me, so I served him back some of his own medicine and told him what I thought of him. A bit harsh, perhaps, but nothing abusive.
Hmmm...Aurelian attacked militant atheism in general conceptually, but I don't really see the ad hominem in his post...=/
Post by: Menang on January 19, 2012, 01:01:38 am
Ad hominem or not, there were valid, interesting points raised in his posts which I think was overlooked by targeting his use of latin/philosophy terms.The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.
He made ad hominem attacks against me, so I served him back some of his own medicine and told him what I thought of him. A bit harsh, perhaps, but nothing abusive.
Hmmm...Aurelian attacked militant atheism in general conceptually, but I don't really see the ad hominem in his post...=/
Post by: Jdog on January 19, 2012, 01:02:05 am
Why i hate religious debates:
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.What i said was wrong, we actually move backwards in religious debates
mate stop trying to be such a peacemaker, just accept that we can have rants and debates, that is the good thing about this board. It allows people to argue and tell everyone what they really think. I don't mind enwiabe telling anyone what he thinks of them, but on the flipside I shuold be able to voice my own opinons.
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 01:04:33 am
Why i hate religious debates:
When thread was made we are at point A.
Up until now, we seemed not to have moved past point A..The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.What i said was wrong, we actually move backwards in religious debates
mate stop trying to be such a peacemaker, just accept that we can have rants and debates, that is the good thing about this board. It allows people to argue and tell everyone what they really think. I don't mind enwiabe telling anyone what he thinks of them, but on the flipside I shuold be able to voice my own opinons.
Nobody stopped you from voicing your opinions... And you obviously did mind my telling Aurelian what I thought of him, given your comment that you thought what I said was "disgusting"
Post by: shinny on January 19, 2012, 01:05:06 am
Ad hominem or not, there were valid, interesting points raised in his posts which I think was overlooked by targeting his use of latin/philosophy terms.The way Enwiabe dealt with aurelian was a disgustingly poor effort.
He made ad hominem attacks against me, so I served him back some of his own medicine and told him what I thought of him. A bit harsh, perhaps, but nothing abusive.
Hmmm...Aurelian attacked militant atheism in general conceptually, but I don't really see the ad hominem in his post...=/
At the same time though, enwiabe did ask him to justify several points/blanket statements from which Aurelian more or less replied that he has reasons, but can't be bothered to type them out. The onus really is on him to provide this justification, so it's poor form by him in this sense. I'd be glad to see this justification though! Postpostpost.
Post by: Jdog on January 19, 2012, 01:05:56 am
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 01:07:00 am
At the same time though, enwiabe did ask him to justify several points/blanket statements from which Aurelian more or less replied that he has reasons, but can't be bothered to type them out.
After I read "logic is too complicated for me to explain to you", I simply lost any interest. How can you even have a meaningful discussion with ridiculous statements like that?
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 01:07:12 am
I didn't say you were stopping me, I was having a go at nacho for trying to be some mediator
I'd say the world probably needs more mediators.
Post by: nacho on January 19, 2012, 01:11:11 am
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 19, 2012, 01:14:42 am
At the same time though, enwiabe did ask him to justify several points/blanket statements from which Aurelian more or less replied that he has reasons, but can't be bothered to type them out.
After I read "logic is too complicated for me to explain to you", I simply lost any interest. How can you even have a meaningful discussion with ridiculous statements like that?
Explain logic please :p.
Post by: Planck's constant on January 19, 2012, 01:18:41 am
Post by: Thu Thu Train on January 19, 2012, 01:29:19 am
Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ? :)I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!
Post by: nacho on January 19, 2012, 01:35:09 am
It is not an outright rejection of reason, per se; religion can string premises together in a valid manner, but the gripes most hold is that it lacks any content in its premises. For instance, to make the claim that god is omnipotent and lets the terrible malaise of atrocities and diseases pester the human race seems ineffably cruel. These premises seem so intuitively erroneous, to any perceiving human being, it cannot act as a prominent model to structure society in a humane manner or as a solid foundation for ethics.you raise some very valid points there
The majority of religious believers are holding onto premises that are formally, by the consensus of academics and the most learned of subjects (however dubiously we want to treat the scientific disciplines), to be absolute bunkum. To assert an agent took it upon itself to allow all entities to exist and handpicked the transmission of blatantly defective alleles as an act of benevolence should bring up some qualms about the soundness of these premises. You want to come to the conclusion a deity exists and is benevolent (which you can do by the tool of logic) and then look around at the world you live in. Each permutation of most monotheistic faiths is an attempt at an absolute normative model that threatens people who live in a dynamic reality. It abandons well-supported, rigorously tested and reputable information from being incorporated into people's moral considerations because it proves contrary to the incantations of some addle nomads from Mesopotamia.
The antitheist movement has not been waged against spirituality by all its proponents; for example, Sam Harris practices many rituals associated to Eastern faith and argues that emotional awareness, or spirituality, is a part of the neurobiology of humans. Additionally, people like the vociferous Christopher Hitchens claims that we have this form of need of meaning and value and it can be define as spirituality; however, Richard Dawkins remains seemingly sceptical of such a proposition. Firstly, you are attacking the antitheist movements as being grounded on flaunting or championing reason. This is true in the sense that it believes an empirical dissection of reality leaves the question of an intelligent agent creating all entities to be, at best, deistic (if some form of deity exists, he is indifferent or uncaring; this is in staunch opposition to the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent concoction many extoll). Secondly, many antitheists are aware that violence and the like is inherently a part of the psychology of man; we are apes of sorts with a bigger cerebral cortex and have the ability to keep our history of bloodshed. However, the argument is that the absolutist nature of the model monotheistic faiths preach, is that it subverts reputable consideration of reality by science, denies the origins of man or the biodiversity of the planet and totes a very distinctly controversial substance dualism in regards to an afterlife – this afterlife subordinates the only defensibly existent life we live now; see Nietzsche’s amor fati argument.
The status of science is an interesting topic. We can tell by Kuhn’s model that it takes a crisis and the weakening of a theory by ad hoc or auxiliary theories to be a sign for the scientific community to re-evaluate the presuppositions of their disciplines. This is all true. Scientific theories are tentative theses; they are there to coincide with the revelation of more details by findings. I do not think science has a telos (an ultimate goal) that is “truth”; I think it seeks to be a problem-solver and to help humanity develop. This is a very evolutionary view of science, which accommodates the possible falsity of all models of science (something religion does not do with their models). Many therefore reject religion because it stunts this problem solving; think of the example of stem cell research and also think about how difficult fundamentalist lobbies protest abortion and try and argue living entities devoid of preference fit into a preference utilitarian model (they assume fertilized eggs want to be alive and assume foetuses want to be born, despite the fact they lack capacity for such at a certain stage of development with re: to foetuses). However, we have to listen to spiels about the sanctity of life as people die from potentially curable diseases, people who fit into the utilitarian preference model our legal system seems to be based on with regards to rights.
I would also like to state that I am not wishing anything against religious folk or even condemning their morality in entirety. I just wish to clarify some of the rationale behind the rejection of religion and why it seems so lacking in coinciding with the evolution of information that science seems to be fulfilling. It also allows for some atrocities to be committed that may not have been committed if this information was considered and the absolutist zeitgeist of nomads from the past abandoned for something a little bit more avant gadre than adamic sin, serpentine meddling and wonderfully repressive views of sexuality.
Post by: enwiabe on January 19, 2012, 01:35:39 am
Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ? :)I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!
Will you then be taking "Intro to Grammar"? :P
Post by: Thu Thu Train on January 19, 2012, 01:38:34 am
No! That's why I'm transferring to Arts!Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ? :)I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!
Will you then be taking "Intro to Grammar"? :P
Post by: nisha on January 19, 2012, 08:04:25 am
Your Just looking at what religion has caused over history, Being religious does not always cause problems. In many religions those who are religious teaches them peace & honestly as well as controling their anger, but also aswell as accepting other religions. If you havn't noticed the religious people are always the calm ones, despite what religion their from christianity, islam or buddhism.
Ultimately, it is not the religion, but the misinterpretation by ignorant individuals on what the meanings of their scriptures are and what to learn from them.
I agree, that the EXTREMISTS are terrible, and give religion, a bad name. But in the end, it is them, the extremists. Not the religion. Religion, in each culture has lasted thousands upon thousands of years, and it is only now that people become fundamentalists, and take words, and then twist it to their liking.
Post by: Russ on January 19, 2012, 09:54:09 am
So, yeah, scientists know that they can't prove things. But saying "we have not disproved it to the nth level of significance" is just a pain and in many cases is completely synonymous with proving it. Also, the flaws in the scientific theory are again irrelevant to a discussion of evidence in this thread. I feel that you're just splitting hairs and posting that because you studied it this year.
Post by: kensan on January 19, 2012, 01:05:29 pm
I don't get why people base their lives off a sacred book written thousands of years ago. I just assume it's because they were fed that information since they were a child. I went to a church service one time (for a school project), and in one segment they got all the kids to form a circle around the pastor and he was reading verses out of the bible that were complete BS! And after that they were given colouring kits (brainwashing and bribing lol).
I just don't like how religion goes and teaches all their "facts" about the world that science has already proved wrong. Science is willing to say "ok we made a mistake, lets find/try/do another way."
"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions." - Frater Ravus
I don't hate religious people, but I do have a problem with religion.
Post by: ShortBlackChick on January 19, 2012, 04:13:12 pm
Religion is something that you can base your life on, as a guide on how to be a decent person, and its up to people to decide how they will perceive and translate the teachings presented to them through the use of their own morality and character. I think this is where people begin to use religion to pursue their own beliefs and sense or morality irregardless of the true teachings and meanings of their religion.
I'm a Buddhist and I went to a Catholic School for 2 years, and not once did anyone- the students, the teachers, or the school itself, try to impose its beliefs on me and try to convert me. During R.E we discussed topics of controversial nature like abortion, use of contraceptives, and gay rights, and everyone was allowed to have a say and had their beliefs treated with respect and acknowledgement despite it sometimes being against the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic Church and despite my school for being known as a Cult in terms of religious feverence. Some of the practices of Catholicism I didnt quite agree with, but I didnt need to voice my opinions on that because people of that faith were doing it for me! I even did a presentation in R.E comparing Christianity and Buddhism and the whole class, my teacher and a Sister listened quite attentively (it wasnt that great, google has great resources for comparing religions to plagiarize from) I think thats just evidence that people of different religions and views can have a peaceful co-existence with religious tolerance.
All religions, at its core, I believe, are similar. See The Ten Commandments of Christianity and the Five Precepts of Buddhism (I violated Number 4 about 3 times in this post) Its just that they all have different ways of worship and implementation and that people have different interpretations of the teachings.
Post by: ninwa on January 20, 2012, 04:16:20 pm
> indicates a quote from you
> They are all philosophers – the champions of reason.
Ah... hahahahahahahaha... hahahahahaha!
Fallacious appeal to authority, proof by example, and "innocence by association" on weak grounds. That some smart people have believed an idea tells us nothing unless unless we know the sufficient reason reason they had to do so. Also, just citing a few examples doesn't tell us anything about the whole. In fact we see only 16% ([1] http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of philosophers with PhD's are theists. "Christianity" embodies a number of ideas, citing Descartes does us no greater favor than citing Koresh and just because there have been intellectual Christians at one point does not excuse the anti-intellectual Christians of today.
Furthermore, in some contexts Descartes did reject logic as he argued that God can do logically impossible things ([2] http://www.jstor.org/pss/40231381)
> To claim that all religious thought is a “rejection of logic and reason” is blatantly false.
To build logically from an illogical or unverified thought or premise is still a rejection of logic and reason.
> (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly)
I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?
> But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.
If something is unexplainable, it is nonsense worth rejecting.
> For now I will even be generous and grant the validity of sense experience and epistemological empiricism (though such generosity is unwarranted)
This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale. We have a duty to ourselves and others to act as if our best understanding of reality is in fact congruent with reality, while constantly seeking to improve it. There is overwhelming reason to believe that reality is as it appears to be, and none to believe that it is not. By abstracting the standard of proof backwards into unfalsifiable impossibility, you serve no one, not even yourself, and accomplish nothing.
Incidentally, I'm pretty damn certain that science is in fact not guilty of such ridiculous fallacy. Its purpose is to build a working predictive model of the laws the universe operates by. If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be. Otherwise we would never take a step, unless we fell into the ceiling.
> Falsification also has its problems but ceebs until it actually comes up.
Are we even speaking english?
> Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science,
And you'd be lying.
> Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion.
It is not dogmatic to reject dogma. This is the most ridiculous of false equivalencies, driven by a need to feel superior to everyone, as outlined in good old xkcd #774. We are, in fact, champions of reason and will continue to assert such until you start reasoning better than we do rather than shouting empty criticisms. It is practical to quantify the world, and we have every reason to believe that the world can be quantifiable based on the success of our efforts to do so thus far, and no reason to believe that it cannot.
> You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.
Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold? It is important to remember that our current body of understanding and knowledge, generated by the scientific method, is not equivalent with what science *can* answer. There is what science has answered, and what science hasn't answered yet. Please present what evidence you have that suggests there are meaningful questions outside of these two categories. Furthermore, what 'essential questions' do you refer to? Or is it that you are merely making empty accusations, rather than presenting a cogent argument?
> Unfortunately, however, such militant atheists are rarely able to see the error of their ways. Just like fundamentalists, they can generally never be persuaded; they are simply to blind, too dogmatic.
That would be because you haven't fucking pointed out any error, or even made any real argument. If you want to persuade us, *try being fucking persuasive.* The blind and the sighted are equally poor at seeing things beyond the visible realm.
> But I argue that this kind of militant atheism is not much better.
No you don't, you state it.
> Critical thinking is wonderful - but this is just not it.
Try explaining why.
> the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.
Pray tell, how are you championing reason with this statement? Do you have anything to back it up whatsoever, or are you merely feeling the numbers?
Also, basically, he doesn't quite understand mathematics, or its sub-discipline of logic.
- A => B (A, therefore B) is not the same as B => A (B, therefore A)
- He confuses this with A <=> B (A is equivalent to B)
edit: an addition
> Wherever you attept to “confirm” a hypothesis you are committing just > this.
> If A then B. B, therefore A.
This is not how one confirms a hypothesis. A better way to formulate a hypothesis is as a proposition P, which, assuming certain conditions are met, has as a logical consequence the statement
if A then B.
Preferably, it has other consequences, such as
A if and only if C,
if D then E.
To confirm the hypothesis, you test these consequences. If the consequences above statements hold in every observation satisfying the conditions of P, and no contradictory results have been observed, then the hypothesis is considered, at least provisionally, as true.
When evidence which contradicts P is observed, then P is either discarded, or reformulated as a similar yet distinct hypothesis P*.
If there is a second hypothesis, Q, which has equal evidence as P but contradicts P, then neither P nor Q are considered to be true until more evidence can be collected.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 20, 2012, 04:58:53 pm
Quote
Fallacious appeal to authority, proof by example, and "innocence by association" on weak grounds. That some smart people have believed an idea tells us nothing unless unless we know the sufficient reason reason they had to do so. Also, just citing a few examples doesn't tell us anything about the whole. In fact we see only 16% ([1] http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of philosophers with PhD's are theists. "Christianity" embodies a number of ideas, citing Descartes does us no greater favor than citing Koresh and just because there have been intellectual Christians at one point does not excuse the anti-intellectual Christians of today.
Aurelian's point is more about how you can be extremely rational and still hold a strong view-point for God. If you'd actually read Descartes, he offers a rational (yes, 100% logic-based) proof for God which is kind of odd, but surprisingly difficult to pick apart. Look it up on the Stanford encyclopedia if you really want.
Quote
Furthermore, in some contexts Descartes did reject logic as he argued that God can do logically impossible things ([2] http://www.jstor.org/pss/40231381)
I love how the very first page (hell, the abstract) of the article you cite states the article is actually arguing for why Descartes didn't actually believe in a logically impossible God...
Quote
If something is unexplainable, it is nonsense worth rejecting.
Explain logic, same challenge I offered Dan. Linguists (Linguistic philosophers?) will tell you also that explanation is in itself often not exactly a certainty - after all, what are words but a series of signifiers? Can we actually provide a 100% certain definition of anything, using simply language? Food for thought.
Quote
To build logically from an illogical or unverified thought or premise is still a rejection of logic and reason.
Most scientific claims taken for granted aren't verified in an absolute sense, they're just very likely true. Scientists will admit this. But then what intuitively seems very likely true is something which differs from person to person - what do you say to this?
Quote
This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale.
See: Buddhism. Hell, see pretty much every single philosophical (and I don't mean this in terms of wank philosophy, I mean accessible stuff like 'existentialism') ever. None of this necessarily relies on science, although science is often useful, perhaps.
Quote
Incidentally, I'm pretty damn certain that science is in fact not guilty of such ridiculous fallacy. Its purpose is to build a working predictive model of the laws the universe operates by. If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be. Otherwise we would never take a step, unless we fell into the ceiling.
Nobody is saying that science doesn't give us a decent predictive model. Pretty much anyone who's argued against Induction so far has talked more about how it isn't entirely logic-based, but instead, requires a certain leap of faith (even if it's a leap of faith which most are willing to accept, and which is probably reasonable to accept).
Quote
I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?
Are we even speaking english?
And you'd be lying.
Real mature.
Quote
Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold? It is important to remember that our current body of understanding and knowledge, generated by the scientific method, is not equivalent with what science *can* answer. There is what science has answered, and what science hasn't answered yet. Please present what evidence you have that suggests there are meaningful questions outside of these two categories. Furthermore, what 'essential questions' do you refer to? Or is it that you are merely making empty accusations, rather than presenting a cogent argument?
I know that a lot of you are existentialists - how do we explain that through scientific analysis alone? I add this to the "explain plz" list.
---
Not going to touch the symbolic logic stuff at the end unless somebody points me directly to where it's relevant, I'm on limited internet access and don't have time to read through it and examine it in relation to the rest of the thread.
I will say right now that I don't necessarily agree with everything Aurelian says. I don't think he's justified everything he's asserted - however, as he's stated numerous amounts of times, he's happy to do so if you just PM him (for the record I've seen some of his philosophy explanation, it's literally thousands of words, so no wonder he cbf).
I'll add something in a second but I'm about to run out of net. Enjoy.
EDIT: Ok back on net. Pixon, tisara and gossamer say hi.
Basically, I'd just like to agree with everyone at this point that there's no further purpose to this topic. I've said to ninwa and a host of others before, I think these sorts of discussions really just come down to emotional responses, or perhaps even just dispositions/personalities. Really, everything that's been said just seems to be a defense of one's way of seeing the world - 'humanities-esque' people seem to prefer possibilities and the abstract, whilst 'science-esque' people seem to be more concerned with the tangible. For instance, I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of militant atheists are scientists, or that a lot of novelists are religious.
tl;dr and conclusion, we're not going to achieve anything for the most part because we can't really change how people are. Cool story, let's go eat some pie.
Post by: Aurelian on January 20, 2012, 05:40:42 pm
Quote
Ah... hahahahahahahaha... hahahahahaha!
Quote
I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?
Quote
If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale.
Quote
Are we even speaking english?
Quote
And you'd be lying.
Quote
That would be because you haven't fucking pointed out any error, or even made any real argument. If you want to persuade us, *try being fucking persuasive.*
I am sorry... but when someone behaving like this, how can you expect any reasonable discussion? I'm not sure who this "very intelligent" friend of yours is, but intelligence aside, he's really just plain rude. Also he unnecessarily says fuck a lot...
Also, as EZ has pointed out, your very intelligent friend needs to learn how to cite - when you cite something, you generally cite something which isn't arguing against your point.
Quote
This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale. We have a duty to ourselves and others to act as if our best understanding of reality is in fact congruent with reality, while constantly seeking to improve it. ... By abstracting the standard of proof backwards into unfalsifiable impossibility, you serve no one, not even yourself, and accomplish nothing.
I am not arguing about what is or is not the best system to "live by", I am arguing about which one provides the truth. I am not caring about whether one "accomplishes" anything pragmatically, I am caring about whether they see things clearly. I am not denying science, as a pragmatic provider of reliable and provisional understanding is brilliant at allowing us to make predictions, or to progress technologically - I am merely questioning how you can say it provides certainty...
Quote
There is overwhelming reason to believe that reality is as it appears to be, and none to believe that it is not.
There is overwhelming reason? What would that be...?
Quote
If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be.
To the things in bold - why? Why is it reasonable?
Quote
Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold?If you can give me a full and adequate account of the first person element of consciousness (i.e. qualia) using neuroscience, or whatever other science you would like, I will be amazed and revere you as a god.
Quote
Also, basically, he doesn't quite understand mathematics, or its sub-discipline of logic.
A => B (A, therefore B) is not the same as B => A (B, therefore A)
He confuses this with A <=> B (A is equivalent to B)
He needs to read up on the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.
It would also be nice if your very intelligent friend had actually bothered to read what I said properly... This is precisely what I was not doing.
Quote
This is not how one confirms a hypothesis. A better way to formulate a hypothesis is as a proposition P, which, assuming certain conditions are met, has as a logical consequence the statement
if A then B.
Preferably, it has other consequences, such as
A if and only if C,
if D then E.
To confirm the hypothesis, you test these consequences. If the consequences above statements hold in every observation satisfying the conditions of P, and no contradictory results have been observed, then the hypothesis is considered, at least provisionally, as true.
When evidence which contradicts P is observed, then P is either discarded, or reformulated as a similar yet distinct hypothesis P*.
If there is a second hypothesis, Q, which has equal evidence as P but contradicts P, then neither P nor Q are considered to be true until more evidence can be collected.
Thank you for restating my own argument, only in a more convoluted fashion, and not addressing the problems with it which I outlined...
I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.
ninwa, this thread was ready to die - you didn't need to revive it by bringing the opinions of your asshole friend into the mix. Your "very intelligent" asshole friend.
Post by: Jdog on January 20, 2012, 06:14:26 pm
Post by: kamil9876 on January 20, 2012, 07:07:33 pm
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 07:08:15 pm
Post by: Mech on January 20, 2012, 07:35:06 pm
So, yes, maybe I should have not typed this - and I am sorry if it turns into more lambasting between members of the board -, but I thought it necessary to perhaps reiterate.
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 08:02:11 pm
I've read Thomas Aquinas' argument and I didn't find it very convincing. To sum it up:
He believes that if people can imagine a god, then something must have provoked that idea, and that provocation must be based on reality.
If that is the case, then I can picture a flying spaghetti monster or 1000+ other gods, so does that mean that they are all real as well?
Humans have a very vivid imagination, so just because we can imagine something, doesn't mean that our idea was closely linked to reality. We combine ideas, so by combining already existent powers (but to the extreme level) together, and the concept of "everything in one", we were able to dream up the idea of a god or deity quite easily.
I'm not familiar with Descartes argument, so if someone would mind posting it, I will gladly try to think up a refutation for it (if I can).
Post by: Russ on January 20, 2012, 08:24:23 pm
I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.
I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...
nb, Descartes argument is still just as trashy as as the original version, no matter how you dress it up
Post by: slothpomba on January 20, 2012, 08:38:08 pm
Would someone please explain to me what evidence there is for the existence of a god or deity?
Depends what philosophical position you take though (without getting extremely technical), it depends what you mean by evidence.
For instance, there are very good arguments that show an all loving, all knowing God might not exist but if he does exist, it suddenly doesn't make him disappear. Conversely, if you think you have very good proof for God, it doesn't suddenly make him pop into existence if he doesn't exist.
That said, such arguments are only of limited value. Personally, i believe we can't actually choose to believe in something like religion, as in, wake up one day and suddenly i decide to become a methodist. The argument ive made around this is very long and fairly complicated but i'll just say that so people know where i'm coming from.
That said, i'm sure it doesn't surprise anyone here there isn't any fully conclusive and widely accepted argument for or against a God. It's easy for one side to play "Dr.No" just like tony abbot and trash the othersides argument but when they present their arguments to the contrary, most of them are just as open to being trashed. Both these reasons are why arguments of that nature often turn into huge circlejerks, its not like your argument will convince many, if any to change teams so to speak. It usually takes something more than that. Most of the time its just people throwing words at each other, telling the other person why they're wrong and why they don't believe what they just said, rinse and repeat.
If you're just looking to refute every single argument that comes your way, you won't find much proof in anything really. We can't under estimate the effect of psychology in things like this either.
The cosmological argument is a good place to start, especially so because you can't really prove either way - http://kingpomba.tumblr.com/post/10354513929/marios-dream-turtles-all-the-way-down-argument-for
Alvin plantinga's notion of "properly basic" is also another place to go to.
Post by: Jdog on January 20, 2012, 08:42:52 pm
I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.
I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...
nb, Descartes argument is still just as trashy as as the original version, no matter how you dress it up
I don't think what enwiabe and co. are doing is debating. If they did it in a reasonable fashion then maybe Aurelian would bother.
Post by: kensan on January 20, 2012, 08:49:12 pm
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&feature=player_detailpage
Then watch an atheists view on it (pretty funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo7Z_abiLE&feature=related
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 20, 2012, 08:59:53 pm
Quote
I also post my opinion and then refuse to deal with people debating it, whilst claiming the moral high ground...
To be fair, he defended pretty much everything except a small aspect of his rant about militant atheism, which seemed an aside and mostly tangential to the actual debate itself (depending on what you define as the 'actual debate' - I'm not even sure anymore...).
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 09:05:35 pm
For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.
This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?
Post by: slothpomba on January 20, 2012, 09:09:56 pm
Post by: brightsky on January 20, 2012, 09:12:45 pm
The infinite regression is an interesting one. I sort of disagree with it, but I'm not yet confident enough to say "it is wrong".
For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.
This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?
what the...
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 20, 2012, 09:16:22 pm
The infinite regression is an interesting one. I sort of disagree with it, but I'm not yet confident enough to say "it is wrong".
For example, suppose if I asked you to draw a y = x graph.
Imagine you are trying to argue that every point on the y = x graph is joined to two other points, whilst I am saying that there must be an endpoint where it is only joined to one point.
I could use arguments like:
1. A y = x graph is a line.
2. A line can only have a maximum number of two points attaching to each point on the line.
3. A line can be split up into a number of different intervals.
4. Let us name the line AC and it is a line of x units in length.
5. Let B be the midpoint of line AC with length x/2 units.
6. Whatever the value for x, this line can be drawn by starting at point B and moving x/2 units in opposite directions (in this case, North-east and South-west starting from the origin).
7. Rather than starting at the origin and drawing a length x/2 units in either direction, we can move x/2 units in a particular direction and then start drawing x units in the opposite direction.
8. We are therefore drawing a line from a point A to another point C.
9. Points A and C are the endpoints of the graph and hence only go in one particular direction (towards each other).
10. Therefore there are points on the graph of y = x that are only joined to one other point.
This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step), however it is based on the idea of infinite regression. Does that mean that the idea of infinite regression can actually work in particular situations? And if it can work in particular situations, is it possible for it to work in a "cause" situation where one event causes another?
what the...
You know you're in trouble when this guy doesn't understand :p
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 09:27:36 pm
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 09:27:56 pm
Post by: Mech on January 20, 2012, 09:28:22 pm
This argument is incorrect and has a fallacy in it (see if you can spot which step)
Can you maybe express your idea in a simpler form? So many premises.
Post by: slothpomba on January 20, 2012, 09:29:32 pm
A lot of muslim terrorists have actually been handed in by the mosques they worship at ( for example : http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/30/332831/mosque-kicked-out-suspected-terrorist-because-of-his-radical-views-and-support-of-al-qaeda/?mobile=nc ).
Another example is how the FBI planted an ex-con pretending to be a terrorist, to try trap other terrorists. Guess what happened? The other people at the mosque reported this undercover agent for being a terrorist and i think he got arrested ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336166/FBI-informant-Craig-Monteilh-scares-Muslim-suspects-report-HIM.html ).
The point which I'm trying to make is that certain things, such as a y = x graph, can go on forever and have an infinite regression. This goes against the principle that many philosophers have used to argue for the existence of a god. For example, if it works for this particular instance, can it work for other things, such as an infinite chain of events with no initial cause?
Yeah, still not working for me. Could you do it not in terms of graphs or anything mathematical (above arithmetic and things like that)
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 09:32:59 pm
Post by: Mech on January 20, 2012, 09:33:49 pm
I think a lot of religious people were massacred during Communists regimes under the assumption of a blank slate
... In what sense?
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 09:35:19 pm
Quote from: Mao
A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it.
http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/spbs/pinker_blankslate.html#ch_08
Steven Pinker explained it a lot better than I ever could. If you've got time to read a chapter
Post by: slothpomba on January 20, 2012, 09:37:10 pm
None the less its a well known fact communist states have and do look down upon religion and repress it on a pretty serious scale half the time. Communist states, especially in the tradition of lenin tend to enforce a kind of state atheism. I think this arises out of Marxism though, in part because in the time marx lived the church was quite often not the good guy; that religion was used by the bourgeois to rule and suppress people according to him, in his time. We can all be reminded of his famous line that "religion is the opiate of the masses", so i'm sure we can tell his disposition towards that. I'll just use a slightly famous poster for illustration of this, not that i necessarily agree with it:
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8180/pyramidofcapitalism.jpg)
It's interesting in a political sense but i don't see the relevance all that much to whats at hand? I did skip through a couple pages though. Are you trying to illustrate that non-religious and even atheistic people and states also do bad things?
Post by: MJRomeo81 on January 20, 2012, 09:42:03 pm
Quote
Zero tolerance policies
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.
A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.Mass generalisation.
Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules. I have no problem with your beliefs. However I find it disrespectful that you insult and ridicule my religion. The rules are there for a reason. If they won't be enforced in future, it will become obvious that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.
It amazes me that an administrator would post such a topic considering the various religious faiths and beliefs held by members on this board. Seriously enwiabe, go and search for some other purpose in your life. The whole "I'm trying to help humanity" crap is getting old. You sound like a basement dweller who needs to confirm his non-religious beliefs.
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 09:42:13 pm
I don't really want to enter into a discussion about whether religion is wholly bad or not, bound to wind up a circle jerk. I think people are creating false dichotomies here, only thinking there can be black and white, when there can actually be many shades in between.
We've moved on from that quite a while ago.
Now we're discussing the existence of a god and the ontological arguments.
Actually nvm, we've started talking about it again...
Yeah, still not working for me. Could you do it not in terms of graphs or anything mathematical (above arithmetic and things like that)
There is no easier way to explain an infinite regression, since infinity itself is a mathematical term.
Just picture a line that goes on forever. A line which has no start or end point. A line which has an infinite regression.
If the line can have an infinite regression, does that mean so can a chain of events?
Post by: enwiabe on January 20, 2012, 09:49:50 pm
Same shit different thread.QuoteZero tolerance policies
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.Mass generalisation.Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules. I have no problem with your beliefs. However I find it disrespectful that you insult and ridicule my religion. The rules are there for a reason. If they won't be enforced in future, it will become obvious that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.
It amazes me that an administrator would post such a topic considering the various religious faiths and beliefs held by members on this board. Seriously enwiabe, go and search for some other purpose in your life. The whole "I'm trying to help humanity" crap is getting old. You sound like a basement dweller who needs to confirm his non-religious beliefs.
And you sound like someone who is so insecure about his beliefs that he cannot stand them being opened up for debate. FYI, the evidence I have for religion being a bad thing is, well, all of history...
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 09:50:40 pm
It's interesting in a political sense but i don't see the relevance all that much to whats at hand? I did skip through a couple pages though. Are you trying to illustrate that non-religious and even atheistic people and states also do bad things?
I think (my thoughts aren't always coherent) that I was trying to point out that even the most ardent atheists do commit the same systematic murders (in the case of communitsts, happened countless times throughout revolutions) as religious people, with the same degree of dogmatism. So yeah.
Post by: Mech on January 20, 2012, 09:56:18 pm
Quote from: MaoA blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it.
http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/spbs/pinker_blankslate.html#ch_08
Steven Pinker explained it a lot better than I ever could. If you've got time to read a chapter
I have read that book. Tabula rasa is the term. But, I am not quite sure how it relates to communism.
EDIT: Wait up, I just realized what you meant. Sorry, I have not read Pinker's book in a while.
(Thanks for the link, btw :) )
Post by: JellyDonut on January 20, 2012, 09:59:21 pm
Edit: A blind, mad monk at that. Actually, anything latin would conjure up this image
Post by: Planck's constant on January 20, 2012, 10:01:46 pm
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 10:03:36 pm
I havent kept up with the debate for a few hours ... who's winning ?
The debate is kind of gone lol. Everyone keeps going off-topic and no-one is arguing properly. It's either an attack against another person or an off-topic statement about some event that happened in the past.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 20, 2012, 10:05:24 pm
I havent kept up with the debate for a few hours ... who's winning ?
It's an internet debate. Nobody wins.
Post by: Mech on January 20, 2012, 10:07:11 pm
Tabula rasa makes me sound like some monk in an unknown monastery discovering the secrets of fortified wine and getting drunk off that. Actually, I might become a Scottish monk now
Edit: A blind, mad monk at that. Actually, anything latin would conjure up this image
Does not sound so bad to me ;)
I havent kept up with the debate for a few hours ... who's winning ?
I do not think anyone is "winning"; I think bickering occurred for the most part.
I havent kept up with the debate for a few hours ... who's winning ?
The debate is kind of gone lol. Everyone keeps going off-topic and no-one is arguing properly. It's either an attack against another person or an off-topic statement about some event that happened in the past.
Here I was thinking I was being respectful and not attacking anyone. :P
Post by: MJRomeo81 on January 20, 2012, 10:11:11 pm
Same shit different thread.QuoteZero tolerance policies
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.Mass generalisation.Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules. I have no problem with your beliefs. However I find it disrespectful that you insult and ridicule my religion. The rules are there for a reason. If they won't be enforced in future, it will become obvious that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.
It amazes me that an administrator would post such a topic considering the various religious faiths and beliefs held by members on this board. Seriously enwiabe, go and search for some other purpose in your life. The whole "I'm trying to help humanity" crap is getting old. You sound like a basement dweller who needs to confirm his non-religious beliefs.
And you sound like someone who is so insecure about his beliefs that he cannot stand them being opened up for debate. FYI, the evidence I have for religion being a bad thing is, well, all of history...
I'm not insecure. You're the one who started this discussion out of nowhere, almost as I am bound to respond with a scientific argument that proves the existence of God. What response are you trying to elicit?
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 10:14:44 pm
I am bound to respond with a scientific argument that proves the existence of God.
Please provide one.
Post by: slothpomba on January 20, 2012, 10:18:50 pm
You could say that evolution proves to you that god didnt create life or something. I study biology and im a big supporter of evolution but for one thing, evolution does not speak about the origin of life, only change. A lot of religious organisations such as the church of england and even the vatican support evolution by in large. For two, this only disproves a particular conception of God that particular people hold. Same with the big bang, as far as i know, it describes the evolution of the early universe and beyond but not the actual origin.
So, just based on these things i mentioned, i think it would be hard for either side.
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 10:31:15 pm
For example, you could even go as far as to say that we don't know if planets even exist. Have you specifically been to space? If the answer is yes, I could claim you're hallucinating. If the answer is no, I could then ask how you know that we live on a round planet. Did someone tell you that? Did you believe them? What if they were lying? What if every picture of the earth you ever saw was photoshopped? What if you're not a human being but a robot that has been programmed to think you're a human being?
There are so many things we can question and it is almost impossible to 100% prove things. How do you prove you have a brain inside your head, rather than a chip of metal? You could indeed be a robot and you wouldn't even know it.
But sometimes, you just have to accept things. You just have to accept that you are a human, even if there is a chance you're not. You have to accept that we live on a round planet, even if you've never seen the earth as a whole for yourself.
I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but I accept it, since, at least in my opinion, most evidence goes against the existence of a god or deity.
Post by: Planck's constant on January 20, 2012, 10:38:02 pm
I can't prove that god doesn't exist
There's no way you'll get 50 in Specialist Maths if you cant do simple proofs like this
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 11:13:15 pm
There's no way you'll get 50 in Specialist Maths if you cant do simple proofs like this
Well a mathematical proof needs only be sufficient enough to convince other mathematicians, so I guess this shouldn't be too hard...
Post by: Truck on January 20, 2012, 11:43:55 pm
Same shit different thread.QuoteZero tolerance policies
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.Mass generalisation.Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules. I have no problem with your beliefs. However I find it disrespectful that you insult and ridicule my religion. The rules are there for a reason. If they won't be enforced in future, it will become obvious that you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.
It amazes me that an administrator would post such a topic considering the various religious faiths and beliefs held by members on this board. Seriously enwiabe, go and search for some other purpose in your life. The whole "I'm trying to help humanity" crap is getting old. You sound like a basement dweller who needs to confirm his non-religious beliefs.
And you sound like someone who is so insecure about his beliefs that he cannot stand them being opened up for debate. FYI, the evidence I have for religion being a bad thing is, well, all of history...
You're still breaking the rules that you wrote...
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 20, 2012, 11:50:30 pm
You're still breaking the rules that you wrote...
He's an admin. The rules don't apply to him.
Post by: enwiabe on January 21, 2012, 12:02:14 am
I know many people get het up about that, but replace "religion" with "marxism" or some other ideology you don't hold near and dear to your heart in the thread title and I guarantee nobody has a problem with it.
Ideas that don't stand up to challenge aren't worth anything, and MJRomeo has done nothing but demonstrate that with his bizarre rants about religion somehow being a taboo topic to discuss. Those who are in the weakest position of a debate will often be the ones who try to stifle it as best as possible.
Post by: Camo on January 21, 2012, 12:13:04 am
My favourite quote from the bible to describe the present day. We know the truth, science can prove that religion no longer need exist. I know people might attack this statement but to me, certain religion authority such as the Catholic Church used their rules to discriminate and get their own way.
Post by: Mech on January 21, 2012, 12:56:07 am
Post by: nubs on January 21, 2012, 01:20:52 am
Not sure if this has already been responded to, but wasn't Abraham told to kill his son, Isaac, by God?Menang, if you were convinced god had spoken to you and told you to kill me because that is what he wanted, would you do it?
That's the thing, I'd never be convinced that God asked me to kill someone, because it directly contradicts what the Bible says.
There's some things we non-militant Christians learn at church about living as a Christian, and one of them is to check what you're being told against what the Bible says.
That's in the bible
EDIT: Never mind I just saw Enwiabe's post
Post by: slothpomba on January 21, 2012, 02:00:01 am
Not sure if this has already been responded to, but wasn't Abraham told to kill his son, Isaac, by God?
That's in the bible
See, the unique thing about the bible and the Torah is that they're considered to be authored by humans inspired by God or recounting divine occurrences brought by God onto this world. Contrast this with Islam which holds the belief the quran is the direct word of god, that God IS the author and it was merely passed down through Muhammad as the messenger. This is why if you read the Quran, in most parts, it is like God is speaking.
Due to the nature of the bible and Torah and its authors, humans a unique nature results. Human beings are fallible and error prone but the fundamental basics, not the accessory details are the most important things. This was long ago in history and since it is produced by humans, it could be a mistaken myth or an allegory.
For instance, you can no more prove that this isn't an allegory or a parable than i can prove that it is.
It could be an allegory or a parable about Abraham's unwaivering faith and submission to god for example.
So, i dont think you can necessarily indict them on an event that no one can prove happened or did not happen, if you're so big on proof and logic after-all.
---------------------------------------
(Since philosophy can be thought of as almost mental chess i have anticipated the retort that will go along the lines of this: "But kingpomba, even if it is an allegory or parable, people still might or will take it literally".
For one, i doubt people will go around killing their children.
For two, Abraham had prior communication with God according to the story and the story tells us it was God. You could dispute the fact that abraham even existed so we'll just take the facts of the story as they present themselves. So, he had good reason to believe in a God and had prior communication with him. People in the modern day, haven't. If you thought you started hearing God out of the blue and he told you to kill your son, most people wouldn't. For one, they had no prior communication with God or proof that it is actually God talking to them. He had seen (according to the story) God carry out many miraculous and powerful events, he had good reason to believe God existed. In the chronology of abrahams life, the sacrafice of his son actually comes in quite late, by this point he had seen the destruction of Sodom, the bible makes the destruction out to be immense, on the level of a missle or something like that. Obviously, according to the story, naturalistic events like this dont really come around. You dont look one day see sodom, look again and theres a smoking crater.
He had made his convenant with God too by this point. So, it comes realtively late, after ample time which abraham had good reason to believe in God.
This kind of retort is based on the kind of black and white thinking i was talking about earlier. That all christians and jews are monolithic bloc and they all hold EXACTLY the same views, which is obviously an incorrect assumption. You have many, upon many, that takes things non-literally. The are very few that take everything in the bible as literal. As someone mentioned above, the mixing of linen and wool. Its in the old testment but almost all christians and a lot of jews dont pay much attention to it.
Another portion people almost everyone forgets is the prohibition against charging usury (interest) on money. Think about everything you have that has some baring in interest, credit cards, even regular bank accounts pay interest, let alone savings accounts that pay something like 6.2%. Home loans carry interest. This is often ignored by many many believers and yet the bible is quiet clear on it:
“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. "
Leviticus 25:35
In numerous other verses as well. The influential early catholic theologian, thomas aquinas was also against ursury and yet many believers today seem to prefer the non-literal or deviant interpretation here.
Same with countless other theologians:
"St. Ambrose was the father of Christian Economics, and when he declared ‘ pecumia non parit pecumiam’, money does not breed money, he laid a sound foundation on which Christian Thinkers were to build for over a millennium. The Council of Elva passed a decree against usury. "
"St. Hilary and St. Augustine maintained that it was a Sin against Charity ; St. Augustine demanded Restitution. St. Chrysostom called it the Sin of Faithlessness. Indeed, thus early appear the arguments based on Reason , Experience and Revelation, which we shall see again and again under varied forms. "
How many Christians do you know with interest bearing home-loans, compared to those without? It's obvious almost all the christians and most of the jews out there don't take everything highly literally.
So, its quiet obviously flawed to assume everyone will suddenly take everything literally)
Post by: Russ on January 21, 2012, 11:00:09 am
Same shit different thread.QuoteZero tolerance policies
ATAR Notes (AN) will always be a safe community environment for all denominations of society. This means no racism, homophobia, or discrimination of any kind. Any comments making mass generalisations on the basis of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference must be supported by citable empirical evidence.A truly dangerous weapon that makes good people do evil things, and allows evil people a vehicle to exponentially grow the damage of their wicked actions.Mass generalisation.Without fail, whenever you have a religious community. Bad shit happens.Real mature. This is the third time I've had to quote the forum rules.
And it's the third time you've been wrong. Whilst enwiabe has obviously never heard the phrase "you'll catch more flies with honey", he's not being racist, homophobic or discriminatory. He's not making negative generalizations without evidence. You could perhaps accuse him of being hyperbolic, but if we're going to ban people for that then it'll be a pretty empty forum.
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 21, 2012, 11:53:42 am
Philosophy is supposed to be about making simple, logical and coherent arguments, starting at a list of premises and deducing an answer step-by-step. This is how mathematical problems are solved and most scientific problems as well. But most philosophers nowadays do not do that...
Most philosophers nowadays care more about poetry and rhetoric than they do about actually making their point. This isn't a debate. The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is. That is how mathematics works and that it how philosophy should work.
So many theistic philosophers try to use the argument of an "infinite regression" to their advantage, yet they don't even know what infinity is! I try to explain in mathematical terms how I disagree with them, and they come up with arguments like "I don't like maths. Please explain this using other terms." If you don't like mathematics, a subject which praises logic and deductive reasoning as its most precious enterprise, then you shouldn't be a philosopher. It's as simple as that.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 21, 2012, 12:28:20 pm
You'll also notice nobody in this thread has claimed a dislike for mathematics...
Post by: Mech on January 21, 2012, 12:57:11 pm
I don't like how philosophy has turned from a logical, thinking subject like mathematics to a poetic, rhetoric subject like English/literature.
Prose have nothing to do with it. Stop being silly.
Quote
Philosophy is supposed to be about making simple, logical and coherent arguments, starting at a list of premises and deducing an answer step-by-step. This is how mathematical problems are solved and most scientific problems as well. But most philosophers nowadays do not do that...
Got any proof to back that one up? Also, try and provide a "simple" argument to explaining consciousness inclusive of intentionality, qualia, free will etc. As EvangelionZeta has said, most philosophy departments have a large amount of mathematics students who focus on the analytical side of philosophy.
Quote
Most philosophers nowadays care more about poetry and rhetoric than they do about actually making their point. This isn't a debate. The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is. That is how mathematics works and that it how philosophy should work.
Philosophers have a longstanding dislike of sophism, trust me. Your argument was not succinct or accessible.
Quote
So many theistic philosophers try to use the argument of an "infinite regression" to their advantage, yet they don't even know what infinity is! I try to explain in mathematical terms how I disagree with them, and they come up with arguments like "I don't like maths. Please explain this using other terms." If you don't like mathematics, a subject which praises logic and deductive reasoning as its most precious enterprise, then you shouldn't be a philosopher. It's as simple as that.
There is a distinction to be made about a mathematical infinity and a superlative infinity (i.e. the zenith of all attributes). Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
Shush.
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 21, 2012, 12:59:19 pm
^^that's actually hilariously untrue - if anything, it's the opposite. Analytic philosophy (dominated my mathematical thinking and, indeed, people with strong Maths backgrounds) dominates most university philosophy departments.
Analytic philosophy has far more atheists than theists, especially considering the low atheist to theist ratio that currently dominates the world population.
You'll also notice nobody in this thread has claimed a dislike for mathematics...
Not directly, but the only one who properly replied to my comment made remarks like this:
An argument not based on graphing would be nice and more accessible... especially since not everyone knows the ins and outs of something like graphing a line like that. Just as far as explaining things to everyone that probably isn't the best approach.. (I stopped reading at about the 2nd or 3rd premise, too much math.
Yeah, still not working for me. Could you do it not in terms of graphs or anything mathematical (above arithmetic and things like that)
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 21, 2012, 01:04:52 pm
nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
Shush.
Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.
All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?
Post by: Mech on January 21, 2012, 01:15:46 pm
I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.
All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?
Or they do not want to go through a ten step process when you could have just made the statement below. You accuse others of being inaccessible and making things unduly complex, and yet you just illustrated your own hypocrisy. To answer the question, you are asking whether the universe had a beginning or an end of events? I do not know.
Post by: slothpomba on January 21, 2012, 06:54:52 pm
The aim isn't to use the fanciest words in your argument so that the opposition has no idea what you're trying to say. The aim is to keep your explanations short, simple, succinct and precise so that everyone can understand what your point is.Kind of what happened when you slapped everyone with a premise that was dense and thick to understand and required everyone to whip out graph paper. You too are guilty.
A key part of arguing philosophically is actually using premises your opponents understand, if they're just sitting around going "wtf..." about your premises, you'll go nowhere.
You may accuse many here of using flowery prose or rhetoric but by in large at least way more people can understand that than your original argument.
If you look through the history of philosophy, at least western philosophy, a lot of these ideas were presented in long books with a fair sprinkling of the very prose you accuse us of. Most of the great ideas weren't a one page book but contained within much lengthier books.
You're a fool if you think we'll suddenly operate under how you think philosophy should work.
Again, i dont see the direct link between your graph supposedly being infinite (which is disputed) and infinite regress in an cosmological sense being possible. You're basically saying, well my graph is infinite, therefore infinite regress in the cosmological sense is possible. It seems like a non-sequitur to me though. My giraffe is yellow, therefore, infinite regress is possible!. Again, just because it may be a property of your graph, doesn't automatically make it a property or the current universe or the origin of that universe.
To be able to act logically in philosophy you dont necessarily need mathematics, you just need logic. They overlap but they're different things. I doubt we need to know how to sketch a derivative for many arguments in philosophy of religion. The only widely presented argument in philosophy of religion which you actually need mathematics for is Pascals Wager which is a pretty dismal argument anyway.
Your one line statement did a much better job than whatever that was before..
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
I wasnt going to respond but some people mentioned that they would like to see such a thing. I thought of numerous proofs but they were mostly wordy and long. I decided to pick the simplest one.
Since you're so fond of graphs, i made you one, enjoy ;).
(Before you go absolutely bananas i realise it is missing arrows and things but the basic idea is contained just as well)
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4500/finiteuniverse.png)
There was no time if there was no universe for time to exist in. The start of the universe is essentially time = 0. We are 13.75 billion years after that. This is a finite amount of time. It is impossible to have infinite regression and an infinite number of events over a finite timespace.
We need to distinguish between implied or mathematical infinity AND actual infinity.
The infinity on your graph can be called implied. You know it is there (or at least you think you do), just scribble down a little one of these ∞ and boom you're done. Can you actually see all the points on your graph up until infinity though? No. Do they actually occur in reality, on your paper? No. Could you graph an actually infinite line? As in, actually draw a line that is infinite? Doubtful. The infinity here is implied, it is not actually present, you can not draw or see the infinite line.
Unless you contend something actually (not theoretically) infinite could be contained within something finite..?
The idea of infinite regression implies such an infinite line has occurred and does actually exist. This is quiet different from scribbling ∞ on a graph and assuming it continues forever. You are saying in actuality all causes in the universe actually continue forever, its not implied, it has actually happened. There are key differences.
It is impossible to have an infinite series of causes over finite time. Also take into consideration the fact that time series from the creation of the universe till now is not infinite. Infinite regress almost implies there were things existing way before the universe but there was no universe for them to exist in.. Infinite regress has to continue before the very creation of the universe to be infinite which is obviously impossible.
[I would usually use a more complicated and wordy argument but this is just fine and a lot more simple and accessible than the other argument. If you still feel like infinite regress is possible though, i'd be happy to deliver this one too..]
Post by: nacho on January 21, 2012, 07:05:29 pm
seriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into thisnobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
Shush.Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.
All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs
how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors
'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'
Post by: burbs on January 21, 2012, 08:23:57 pm
seriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into thisnobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
Shush.Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.
All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs
how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors
'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'
This I understand.
Post by: WhoTookMyUsername on January 21, 2012, 09:05:54 pm
An would be such a boring place without nachoseriously dude why the hell are you bringing maths methaphors and relations into thisnobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
Shush.Nobody here is stating their dislike of mathematics; nobody actually understands the argument you made as it was not accessible and not even a well-structured syllogism.
I've made mathematical arguments about 50 times more complex and received many good responses to them, yet when I post a simple mathematical argument in the religious section of the forum, no-one understands me.
All I was saying was that a y = x graph has no ends. It goes on forever and even though it is a line, it still has no endpoints. Similarly, a timeline is another line, so would it be possible for a timeline to have no endpoints and lead to an infinite regression?
it makes you look the most pretentious person out of anyone here, and furthermore it's like you have no valid point, so you're presenting everyone with a vague and un-clear logic
you're not some dude off Numb3rs or Sheldon Cooper.. ffs
how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors
'your arguments are like set at a gaussian blur of 20px and terribly cropped. It's like you used the magic eraser tool and couldn't be bothered refining the edges or didn't know that pen tool existed. And spamming C4D's and setting them to overlay at 50% opacity doesn't make it look fancy or cool. Get some better fonts. stop skewing your arguments'
Post by: trinh on January 21, 2012, 09:25:54 pm
how do you like it when i use photoshop metaphors
+1 (signature worthy imo)