|
Ours is the only logical answer!
Thanks, I keep forgeting to check for new episodes online, never can find the time.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)As I understand it, there's a special hell for lawyers. ;-)
And it will be full of the cool people!*
*and me.
Edit: Oh, and even though religion demands being taken seriously (hello there, equal time for "Intelligent Design"), the rules of logic need not apply.
Logic is based on assumptions. If you make the assumption that God is real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. If you make the assumption that God is not real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. Logic is based on assumptions, you can't use logic to prove assumptions, otherwise they are not assumptions.
(which, honestly, leads me to believe I shouldn't be offended by the "you're going to hell" statement from the OP. Who cares what that person thinks about my likely post-life adventures.)As I understand it, there's a special hell for lawyers. ;-)And it will be full of the cool people!*
*and me.
Of course we deserve a special hell. The regular one is to limited to contain our magnificence. Not to mention that it's full of losers.
As to articulating your argument - why would I bother? It's wrong.
Oh, I don't know; to demonstrate in good faith that you get it? To foster mutual understanding?
I'm sorry I bothered to take you seriously enough to take a crack at understanding your point-of-view. I don't like wasting respect on those who then go on to demonstrate they are unworthy of it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Edit: Oh, and even though religion demands being taken seriously (hello there, equal time for "Intelligent Design"), the rules of logic need not apply.Logic is based on assumptions. If you make the assumption that God is real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. If you make the assumption that God is not real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. Logic is based on assumptions, you can't use logic to prove assumptions, otherwise they are not assumptions.
Not necessarily. Some logical arguments are based on observations and attempting to come up with explanations for those observations. To the extent the explanation incorporates assumptions, they tend to be of the type that are necessary for any type of reasoning.
Logic is based on assumptions. If you make the assumption that God is real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. If you make the assumption that God is not real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. Logic is based on assumptions, you can't use logic to prove assumptions, otherwise they are not assumptions.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
I am sorry, but why then, is it disrespectful. It might just be me, but i really cant see how it is disrespectful.
(I'm not offended. I'm just not sure if I care any more.)
Look, it's like this. You are taking something that you know to be false (and don't bring up this crap about how it might be true or whatever -- you don't believe it) and are comparing it to something that millions of people believe is true and are using this to somehow show your superiority or to show just how stupid anyone is who might believe this stuff...
And you don't see how this might be disrespectful?
|
|
Some logical arguments are based on observations and attempting to come up with explanations for those observations. To the extent the explanation incorporates assumptions, they tend to be of the type that are necessary for any type of reasoning.
Exactly. We use this kind of thought process all the time in engineering work. Some complex piece of equipment breaks, and we theorize what might have happened based on previous observations, and assumptions, backed up with a healthy dose of logic.
|
|
I am sorry, but why then, is it disrespectful. It might just be me, but i really cant see how it is disrespectful.(I'm not offended. I'm just not sure if I care any more.)
Look, it's like this. You are taking something that you know to be false (and don't bring up this crap about how it might be true or whatever -- you don't believe it) and are comparing it to something that millions of people believe is true and are using this to somehow show your superiority or to show just how stupid anyone is who might believe this stuff...
And you don't see how this might be disrespectful?
I have to side with Moff Rimmer,
The FSM is a parody, which is used to insult those who believe in God, are there a few people who actually worship the FSM? I'm sure there are, same as there are some who worship Cthulhu or Charles Manson...
But, by throwing spaghetti in their face you are effectively calling them idiots for their belief in God...
[note: there are no 2000 year old texts referring to the FSM]
I am sorry, but why then, is it disrespectful. It might just be me, but i really cant see how it is disrespectful.
Well first, I think the question assumes that a person who believes in God also believes that God's existence can be proven based on our current understanding of science. That's rather presumptive, given that our current understanding of science is admittedly limited. After all, we can't even prove the existence or nonexistence of dark matter, and the evidence for its existence is much more compelling.
That said, many people have religious experiences that they attribute to God, and very few, if any, have religious experiences that they attribute to the Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean God exists, of course. However, I think the circumstantial evidence for God's existence is certainly more compelling than the circumstantial evidence for his noodly goodness. :)
|
|
Some logical arguments are based on observations and attempting to come up with explanations for those observations. To the extent the explanation incorporates assumptions, they tend to be of the type that are necessary for any type of reasoning.Exactly. We use this kind of thought process all the time in engineering work. Some complex piece of equipment breaks, and we theorize what might have happened based on previous observations, and assumptions, backed up with a healthy dose of logic.
And with computers, sometimes it's just "gremlins".
;-)
|
|
I am sorry, but why then, is it disrespectful. It might just be me, but i really cant see how it is disrespectful.Well first, I think the question assumes that a person who believes in God also believes that God's existence can be proven based on our current understanding of science. That's rather presumptive, given that our current understanding of science is admittedly limited. After all, we can't even prove the existence or nonexistence of dark matter, and the evidence for its existence is much more compelling.
That said, many people have religious experiences that they attribute to God, and very few, if any, have religious experiences that they attribute to the Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean God exists, of course. However, I think the circumstantial evidence for God's existence is certainly more compelling than the circumstantial evidence for his noodly goodness. :)
Well i think mutual basic human respect is something that is lacking all around these days.
And as for the religious experience thing whether you call a special realisation or a receiving the gift of the holy spirit, they are all very explainable scientifically but that doesn't mean to the person it occurs to it makes it any less special or personal.
For what it's worth, I really do value what you say -- even though I don't always agree with it.
The feeling is mutual. Discussions with you are far more pleasant than those I generally have with the religious. I expect I'm more likely to learn something in them too.
Consider yourself emailed. :)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Logic is based on assumptions. If you make the assumption that God is real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. If you make the assumption that God is not real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. Logic is based on assumptions, you can't use logic to prove assumptions, otherwise they are not assumptions.
Exactly the thought I had when reading your statements about logic.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For what it's worth, I really do value what you say -- even though I don't always agree with it.The feeling is mutual. Discussions with you are far more pleasant than those I generally have with the religious. I expect I'm more likely to learn something in them too.
Consider yourself emailed. :)
Agreed. Moff is probably the best advocate for Christianity that I have been lucky enough to encounter. I find it's much harder to be disparaging about Christianity when every post I have to ask myself "can I say this fairly about someone like Moff?"
I'm still not a believer, I still struggle with being respectful of some aspects of Christian thought I find particularly difficult to accept, but I strive to be respectful of Christian thought in a large part because of Moff, who has always given me more respect than I deserve (or expected) and better answers to my questions (even the theoretical ones) than anyone else I've encountered.
Exactly the thought I had when reading your statements about logic.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Logic is based on assumptions. If you make the assumption that God is real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. If you make the assumption that God is not real, then you can logically follow outcomes from that. Logic is based on assumptions, you can't use logic to prove assumptions, otherwise they are not assumptions.
Ok, I'll bite. But I'll probably regret it. Logic is not based on assumptions, because one can have a completely logical argument without assuming anything at all about the truth of either the premise(s) or the conclusion.
For example:
P1: Anyone 6 feet tall is immortal.
P2: I am 6 feet tall.
--------------------
C: I am immortal.
Is a valid argument with an false conclusion, because the first premise is false.
On the other hand:
P1: I live in Arizona.
P2: I am 6 feet tall.
----------------------
C: I am male.
Is an invalid argument because the conclusion (though true) doesn't follow from the premises.
Let's take your example above. First of all, God's existence (or non-existence) is a conclusion, not a premise (or assumption, as you call it). Second, let's say I do this:
P1: The universe exists
P2: Something must have created the universe (the something is what we choose to call "God")
---------------------
C: A creator ("God") exists
This is a valid (logical) argument. However, the truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of the premises. I personally take exception to the second premise, and so I believe the conclusion to be false, but I can observe that the argument is valid (aka logical) without making any assumptions about the truth of the premises or the conclusion.
But, by throwing spaghetti in their face you are effectively calling them idiots for their belief in God...
[note: there are no 2000 year old texts referring to the FSM]
By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Truimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]
Conclusion: Don't throw things. It's not nice, no matter how old you are.
Since Pinky the Bed-Troll gives your life meaning, gives you positive direction for your life, gives you a positive community to interact with, gives explanations to things which science will never have answers to, and gives you something positive to work toward (and really this is only a drop in the bucket) then from your point of view, "yes" they are essentially the same thing.
Moff, I know you're not happy with the Pinky example, but allow me to keep it alive for just a little longer, since what you wrote above is a great intro to what I've been trying to argue earlier.
Now, if all religions were as happy fluffy bunny-like as the above, then there wouldn't be a problem.However, what happens when Pinky starts to demand that bugleyman has to circumcise his daughters, make his wife wear a veil/cover her head, tell his female family members that they cannot speak in public, can never hold e.g. a teaching position and must always obey him (bugleyman), and treat a large portion of the world as second rank citizens? What if Pinky says that it's "okay" for a man to rape a woman, he just has to bear the burden of marrying her afterwards?
Or if bugleyman suspects his wife to be unfaithful, he's allowed to kill her to save his family's honor, so says the mighty Pinky.
At what point do you say that they are no longer essentially the same thing. Well, so far, all the examples I've given above would still make Pinky essentially the same as the Abrahamic god.
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.
And if your god can allow these things, surely Pinky and his followers are allowed to follow similar tenets, right?
Another thing I wanted to address is the idea that we should be respectful of these religions because so many people around the world believe in them... excuse me?
Just because a lot of people believe the same thing, that automatically makes them right (yes, even atheists too)?
People used to believe the earth was flat, should we have stopped questioning that too?
Thousands of people believed (some still do) that those of jewish faith were the root of all evil, should we have stood idly by while they were "taken care of?"
Or that muslims are all terrorists just waiting to flood the western world and behead everyone... should we believe them and just fire the nuke before it's too late?
Sorry, mass delusions doesn't equal truth.
|
|
But, by throwing spaghetti in their face you are effectively calling them idiots for their belief in God...
[note: there are no 2000 year old texts referring to the FSM]By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Truimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]
Conclusion: Don't throw things. It's not nice, no matter how old you are.
Good call...I try to to throw things, not even temper tantrums =D
Gentle Giant, the Earth is flat...well portions of it are...some are perfectly flat...In fact there are more flat places than round, in fact, the Earth isn't even round...it's ovoid, since it bulges at the middle...and if you took all the water off the planet it would be very NOT round...it would have deep deep trenches in it... but from space it looks round, but, it's not round...so the truth is that looks can be deceiving... [This message brought to you by the Flatten the Earth Society of Bulldozers and Pavers]
=D
please note the PSA brought to you by the FTESOBAP may or may not represent the actual views of the poster and all characters in this virtual opera we call life may or may not truly exist.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.
I doubt stopping the practice of such religions would stop the commission of atrocities. The willingness and ability to commit atrocities seems to me to be as much a part of human psychology as the willingness and ability to believe in god, but I don't think there is a causal relationship between the two. Religion is used as a means to dehumanize people and allow for such crimes, but so are skin color, gender, and nationality. Humans seem to have a boundless ability to divide and hate each other, and religion is but one tool in that particular drawer.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.
I play D&D, so I'm supporting nuts that go on killing sprees while pretending to be their characters? I guess I'd better stop playing...
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.I doubt stopping the practice of such religions would stop the commission of atrocities. The willingness and ability to commit atrocities seems to me to be as much a part of human psychology as the willingness and ability to believe in god, but I don't think there is a causal relationship between the two. Religion is used as a means to dehumanize people and allow for such crimes, but so are skin color, gender, and nationality. Humans seem to have a boundless ability to divide and hate each other, and religion is but one tool in that particular drawer.
You are absolutely right Sebastian (gaahh, it burns just saying it!). At least with respect to the last part. However, I'd like to see that tool removed from the toolbox of depraved humanity, especially when the tool itself is the cause of some of the atrocities (i.e. those which spring from the religious texts/dogmas themselves).
One less reason to divide and hate each other is a good thing in my book.Then we can start chipping away at the other ones.
Gentle Giant, the Earth is flat...well portions of it are...some are perfectly flat...In fact there are more flat places than round, in fact, the Earth isn't even round...it's ovoid, since it bulges at the middle...and if you took all the water off the planet it would be very NOT round...it would have deep deep trenches in it... but from space it looks round, but, it's not round...so the truth is that looks can be deceiving... [This message brought to you by the Flatten the Earth Society of Bulldozers and Pavers]
=D
please note the PSA brought to you by the FTESOBAP may or may not represent the actual views of the poster and all characters in this virtual opera we call life may or may not truly exist.
Damnit! Stop ruining my points with logic and observable truths!
Oh wait...:-p
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.I play D&D, so I'm supporting nuts that go on killing sprees while pretending to be their characters? I guess I'd better stop playing...
Erm no. That is not even close to what I said. Nowhere in any D&D books does it say that it's okay to go on killing sprees while pretending to be your character.
All of the examples I gave above, however, are right there, black on white in the various texts of the Abrahamic religions. Some of the points are even greatly discussed and expanded upon by "revered religious leaders."|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You are absolutely right Sebastian (gaahh, it burns just saying it!).
Everyone has that reaction at first. You just need to practice typing it and it will hurt less each time. ;-)
At least with respect to the last part. However, I'd like to see that tool removed from the toolbox of depraved humanity, especially when the tool itself is the cause of some of the atrocities (i.e. those which spring from the religious texts/dogmas themselves).
One less reason to divide and hate each other is a good thing in my book.
Then we can start chipping away at the other ones.
I'm being a bit devil's advocate (in support of the religious position, ironically enough) because to a certain extent, I do agree with you. I find myself smacking my head at some of the idiotic and horrific things done in the name of religion, and wishing it would go away.
But, then I think of people who have been helped and healed by religion, who've used it as a tool to better themselves and help their fellow man, the ones who have overcome addiction and abuse through their belief in a god, and I try and remember the good done by believers. I like to think the good outweighs the bad and, to the extent it doesn't, we should focus on encouraging the good rather than destroying the system entirely.
I think religion is a very powerful psychological tool and, like all tools, it can be used for good and evil. But, the good and evil are in us, not in the tool.
I know (hope!) that every religious person on these boards do not follow any of the examples, but they are still a part of their religion and as long as they continue to support their religion these atrocities continue to be practiced around the world.I play D&D, so I'm supporting nuts that go on killing sprees while pretending to be their characters? I guess I'd better stop playing...Erm no. That is not even close to what I said. Nowhere in any D&D books does it say that it's okay to go on killing sprees while pretending to be your character.
All of the examples I gave above, however, are right there, black on white in the various texts of the Abrahamic religions. Some of the points are even greatly discussed and expanded upon by "revered religious leaders."
Maybe I misread this, and I apologize if that is the case, but there's a cause and effect in the quoted statement. I continue to support my religion-->atrocities continue to be practiced. I am disgusted by things that are perpetrated in the name of Christianity or some outmoded interpretation of passages from the Bible, but I don't think my being a Christian condones those activities. Hence, my post...
Everyone has that reaction at first. You just need to practice typing it and it will hurt less each time. ;-)
You are absolutely right Sebastian (gaahh, it burns just saying it!).
NEVER!
:-pBut, then I think of people who have been helped and healed by religion, who've used it as a tool to better themselves and help their fellow man, the ones who have overcome addiction and abuse through their belief in a god, and I try and remember the good done by believers. I like to think the good outweighs the bad and, to the extent it doesn't, we should focus on encouraging the good rather than destroying the system entirely.
My scales tilt the other way. I also see some good done by religion, however as an atheist, I have a hard time seeing how these things couldn't be done by secular organizations (which would also take away the good/bad efforts, such as the catholic church helping aids victims in Africa while at the same time telling them not to use condoms...).
As for personal victories, I am also a bit in the "it's a crutch" trench as has been expressed earlier. It's a powerful crutch, though, I'll readily admit that.So, for me, the bad things currently heavily outweigh the good things, especially when I think many of the good things can be done/overcome without the need for religion.
I think religion is a very powerful psychological tool and, like all tools, it can be used for good and evil. But, the good and evil are in us, not in the tool.
That is especially true if you look at the various religious texts as purely man made. Then they reflect our psychological make-up very well. The problem comes when it's viewed as the inerrant word of a diety, then man can use it to absolve himself of personal wrongdoings, while still perpetrating atrocities. That's when the tool itself becomes evil.
Maybe I misread this, and I apologize if that is the case, but there's a cause and effect in the quoted statement. I continue to support my religion-->atrocities continue to be practiced. I am disgusted by things that are perpetrated in the name of Christianity or some outmoded interpretation of passages from the Bible, but I don't think my being a Christian condones those activities. Hence, my post...
No harm done. :-)
No, you personally believing in the christian god doesn't in itself cause atrocities to be practiced. However, by being an active christian and beloning to an organized church, you legitimize being a christian. However, in other parts of the world, heck maybe even in the next county over, the christian church might still practice and preach those outmoded interpretations of the bible. And even if you don't personally believe in those practices, they are still there in the bible, ripe for anyone to take literally and abuse. So, as long as you're a christian, you're helping the big umbrella that is the christian church being accepted around the world, even those who have a different interpretation of the bible than you.In fact, some of them may even argue that YOU are "doing it wrong" by not following all the things in the bible...
Some thougths about Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments and the validity of using them:
I would say that the FSM argument was originally created to fight creationist ambitions regarding education. Basically, creationists would say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "just another theory", using the strategy of confusing the meaning of the word "theory" in scientific context with the meaning of it when used coloquially. Then they would proceed to point out that excluding another theory (i.e Creationism) was not democratic (failing, of course, to see that scientific knowledge is not obtained by means of a democratic process). Thus the FSM is born, contending that, if usual Creationism was to be considered as a scientific theory, other, epistemologically equivalent theory (such as the FSM) theory would have to be.
The FSM argument is a valid one in this kind of debate, and concerns an important point that must be answered by people who would like to make appear that religion is something that it is not. In my opinion, there is one other occasion where the argument can be used, and that is when one chooses to participate in a debate concerning the plausibility of god's existence or its consequences. It is a perfectly valid question in this kind of discussion. Should one decide not to discuss the subject, it is, of course, rude to use it, as it loses its objective, becoming merely a way to make people mad.
The anger many people feel when such arguments are used in a discussion is very similar to the sentiment young scientists sometimes feel when their work is first criticized. When there is a (perceived) flaw in an argument, there is, sometimes, no tactful way to point it out. After a while, we learn that when we really want to understand things, we will be wrong a lot of times and we need people to tell us.
No, you personally believing in the christian god doesn't in itself cause atrocities to be practiced. However, by being an active christian and beloning to an organized church, you legitimize being a christian. However, in other parts of the world, heck maybe even in the next county over, the christian church might still practice and preach those outmoded interpretations of the bible. And even if you don't personally believe in those practices, they are still there in the bible, ripe for anyone to take literally and abuse. So, as long as you're a christian, you're helping the big umbrella that is the christian church being accepted around the world, even those who have a different interpretation of the bible than you.
In fact, some of them may even argue that YOU are "doing it wrong" by not following all the things in the bible...
I understand what you are saying. For me, there is one ultimate judge who will determine whether I am "doing it right" (which sounds like a big cop out, I realize). Actually, my family is probably doing a lot of things "wrong"--we left a church we had been attending for two years, because of the increasing anti-Muslim message and being told by other church members that we shouldn't have Muslim friends. Strictly speaking, they're not saved, but I've never considered telling folks "You're going to burn in Hell!!!" (which I've overheard in conversation) to be a good selling point. Active intolerance is also not going to convince anybody of anything beyond their impression of one's arrogance. I'm a late-comer to Christianity because that was my impression of the religion. My belief structure orbited around it, and I've embraced it now, in spite of my impressions. I'm never going to be a good person to argue for it, because a lot of it is a personal faith-based decision. I will, however, try to set as good an example as I can.
Sorry for the ramble...
|
|
Another thing I wanted to address is the idea that we should be respectful of these religions because so many people around the world believe in them... excuse me?
Just because a lot of people believe the same thing, that automatically makes them right (yes, even atheists too)?
People used to believe the earth was flat, should we have stopped questioning that too?
Thousands of people believed (some still do) that those of jewish faith were the root of all evil, should we have stood idly by while they were "taken care of?"
Or that muslims are all terrorists just waiting to flood the western world and behead everyone... should we believe them and just fire the nuke before it's too late?
Sorry, mass delusions doesn't equal truth.
Sebastian addressed the other point so I'm going to ignore it for now.
As for this -- is it really possible for you to misrepresent me any more?
I said none of this. Not even close. It's not even worth refuting. It's not even implied.
As for the good that religion does. I can't speak for all of them, but the denomination that I belong to -- the tsunami hit India, the leaders of the denomination met that day, came up with a plan and were there helping people the next day. They then continued to help people out for the next 2 years. Long after the rest of the world forgot about the incident. Same thing with the hurricane a few years ago. Same thing with the earthquake in China (which was more difficult because China pretty much refused assistance initially). Our denomination is actively working towards ending slavery with a number of other religious organizations. We are part of a religious organization that works with poverty stricken places to help them get clean water, food and education (and not "propaganda" education or else I wouldn't be part of it). Actually, I don't know of anything that the denomination that I belong to has ever been involved with that is anything even remotely like what you have described. But if you want to believe that because of what I believe that it puts me in the same group as what you described -- well, more power to you.
It's really the ultimate catch-22 for Christians. Idiot, bad, evil "Christians" are the ones that get the press time. And then Christians aren't supposed to advertise all the good that they do since then it makes them look arrogant rather than practicing humility. So then what ends up happening is that we get lumped together with all the psychos.
|
|
By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Truimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]
Kirth, you ok? A few of your posts were a little antagonistic -- especially from you. Did something happen in your neck of the woods recently?
|
If you think I'm impressed by MENSA cards (since they seem happy to let four year olds in there) I'm sorry, but your qualifications are not the issue, your arguments are. I'm still wating for you to engage with my arguments rather than repeat your rather tired assertion about burdens of proof. If you simply want to fall back on "I'm cleverer than you and I have a card to prove it", we are wasting our time.Actually, you already fell back on that when you alledged that I was unable to grasp your point. I merely asked that you extend to me the same courtesy I extended to you; that is, to assume the problem was one of communication, not intelligence.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that God lies outside them realm of logic. That He is inherently unprovable, and to even try to prove his existence is to miss the point entirely. Further Atheism is equally unprovable, which is relevant because where the "burden of proof" lies is simply a matter of perspective.
Am I on the right track?
Edit: Age is not a factor in IQ. If measured correctly, it should remain relatively constant thoroughout life. Of course, four might be a little young to take an accurate measurement, but five or six certainly wouldn't be.
You get the outline but haven't addressed the implications for your own argument. I have set them out fairly clearly but I'll do it again for your convenience.
Your response to virtually everything I wrote was that "the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion" and then claimed that you were following logic in doing so. My view is that:
1. There is no such thing as a positive or negative assertion. There are just assertions, and any difference is simply a matter of phrasing. Atheism is not a "non-belief", but an assertion as to how the world works, the same as religious faith is. The labelling of things as positive or negative is a rhetorical smokescreen you hide behind to avoid having to justify your own "negative assertion" concerning your belief in atheism while implying that religion (a "positive assertion") needs to positively justify itself to be valid. This has absolutely no basis in logic, despite your avowed adherence to it.
2. Even if 1. was correct, it doesn't matter because no one in this debate can actually proffer proof either way. I've already phrased it in several different ways, but basically no one can offer you proof that religion is true because it does not exist. And you cannot offer evidence that it is false. That is why you like 1., because if someone turns round to you and says "OK, prove to me God doesn't exist" you can loftily refuse to. However, since 1. is bogus, that offers you no genuine philosophical cover.
The reason that Pinky is a laughable stab at a metaphysical world view is because it is not a useful hypothesis. It doesn't have any explanatory power about the world (though that never stopped L. Ron Hubbard, Tom Cruise and John Travolta, of course, as Thiargo pointed out above) and is a blatant rhetorical device. Formally, I cannot disprove Pinky's existence. But what we choose to believe is not, in any case, based on logic, but on our preferences. In fact, everything we do is based on non-logical preferences - psychology trumps logic every time. If you think that atheism is more logical than religious belief, it isn't. This is not to imply that all metaphysical ideas are equally valid - they can't all be true. Pinky looks pretty shakey, for example.
I prefer atheism because it fits my prejudices - I am repelled by the idea of a God sitting in judgement upon me. I don't "like" it, for want of a better term. Also, having looked into the subject, religion seems to be a mutable social and historical phenomenon which is at odds with the idea of an eternal, infallible God - that doesn't invalidate that He exists, but makes me suspicious. Other people feel differently, and take comfort from the notion of a benevolent God (or whatever). That's up to them. The idea has sufficent explanatory power for them to feel comfortable with it. Some of it might seem silly (like Pinky, or dianetics), against our experience, or even corrupt and evil, but then that is how we make our choices. I don't know what your reasons are. But logic has nothing to do with it. Science has nothing to say on the subject.
The root of our discussion lies in the suggestion that atheism is simply saying what is not there, and actually isn't saying what is. Unfortunately, we don't believe in what isn't there, we believe in what is. You implicitly have a metaphysical world view, whether you like it or not.
|
|
Are we still discussing this? If you want to be banned from a forum, pop over to WOTC forums and criticise the millitary recruiters thread for passing itself off as a request for advice on how to join up while forum leaders (who openly advocate such thinly veiled recruitment behavior) shut down discussions on ethics, Laws, and government behaving badly (despite international laws on human rights to the contrary).
Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis
I should really expand on that, to give some indication of why my hackles are up so much.
How often do we hear "back in my day..." and "kids these days..." ? As if humanity is incapable of learning everything, and as if no amount of effort can possibly hold back entropy. Why study science when it's "obvious" that no one can learn anything? Replace it with random unfounded opinions, which at least have the comfort of familiarity. "Evolution is crap because I don't understand how it works," and "global warming is a myth because I think it is" -- both of them rooted in the assumption that nothing can ever change, and that we can never learn how things work. It's a particulary narcissistic form of nihilism -- lie down and die in ignorance and filth, because supposedly our childhood was infinitely better than any of our descendants' can ever be, and all we can do is pray for the End Times.And the thing is, it's crap. People have been saying that stuff since there were people. How many predicted End Times have come and gone, with no end? Or watch No Country for Old Men: "Back when my granddaddy was sheriff, he didn't even need to carry a gun!" What?! I work in West Texas, know the people -- it's incalculably safer now than it was a hundred years ago.
Another one: how many lives have been saved by the introduction of vaccines, for example? But there are extremely vocal people claiming that the chance of side effects in 1 child out of 10,000 is much worse than the likelihood of horrible death by disease of 1 child in 2.
I could go on for hours, but I'll stop ranting now. As a whole, we've forgotten some important lessons, I agree. But this whole Ecclesiastes thing is starting to grate.
|
|
By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Trimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]Kirth, you ok? A few of your posts were a little antagonistic -- especially from you. Did something happen in your neck of the woods recently?Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis ("Why do we need a 100-year-old theory of evolution when the Bible has been around for 2,000 years? Betcha can't answer that!"). I just felt I should point out that, by that argument, we should all convert to Hinduism and be done with it.
None of that is directed at you, Moff. I think Sebastian hit it on the head when he remarked that Christianity could easily have a much worse spokesperson than you have been, and continue to be.
Actually you are all joining the church i'm starting.
The Church of Universal Truth
Not really. It only takes on the intent when a comparison such as the one given is made. An intentional comparison of Pinky the troll to God. Simply saying 'I believe God is imaginary' is one thing, the 2nd demeans the others' belief. Real life words, not theoretical example.Okay, that I can see.
Sheesh, wtf is my problem anyway? I'm taking on a tangential theoretical issue in an argument about a theoretical issue. ;-)
For what it's worth (and not particularly directed at you Emperor7), as much as I am a fan of logic and reasoning, concepts in which I put a lot of stock and, yes, even some faith, just as I have a hard time imagining a single absolute god, I also have a hard time imagining a single absolute logical conclusion to any particular complex question.
Other than the extreme edges of the POVs you may find a lot of common ground there. For me, my beliefs aren't so strong that they close the door to other beliefs. I believe in evolution, the scientific process, and in people's right choose what makes them comfortable. I think God is bigger than the Bible and is more open than closed. Not so singular. But that's my version of faith.
- maybe a result of the Religious Studies course I had in the Catholic high school I attended. While studying several religions not once were any of them disparaged. Good teacher.
Cheers.
|
|
By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Trimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]Kirth, you ok? A few of your posts were a little antagonistic -- especially from you. Did something happen in your neck of the woods recently?Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis ("Why do we need a 100-year-old theory of evolution when the Bible has been around for 2,000 years? Betcha can't answer that!"). I just felt I should point out that, by that argument, we should all convert to Hinduism and be done with it.
None of that is directed at you, Moff. I think Sebastian hit it on the head when he remarked that Christianity could easily have a much worse spokesperson than you have been, and continue to be.
Actually you are all joining the church i'm starting.
The Church of Universal Truth
- String Theory invalidates religion and evolution.
- The Universe is debris of change in possibility.
- Time is contunuous change in Possibility.
- The Singularity is a moment of change in possibility.
- Only life can create change in possibility, and only from outside the Universe.
If Adam Warlock turns up now, I'm going home before he turns purple again.
|
|
Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis ("Why do we need a 100-year-old theory of evolution when the Bible has been around for 2,000 years? Betcha can't answer that!"). I just felt I should point out that, by that argument, we should all convert to Hinduism and be done with it.
None of that is directed at you, Moff. I think Sebastian hit it on the head when he remarked that Christianity could easily have a much worse spokesperson than you have been, and continue to be.
That's all right. I just saw "Religulous" last night. I was fine through the first 95% of the movie -- through the trucker interviews, the amusement park workers, and so on. It was about what I expected. But then his closing remarks which had little to nothing to do with the previous 95% of the movie in which he basically said that all religion is evil and must be stamped out regardless the cost. So we should all become that which we are trying to end. I mean, he basically said that the Holocaust didn't happen because "Hitler was a mass murdering F***head as many important historians have said". It happened because a few people in his mammoth empire claimed to be Christian. What?
Of course, you probably felt the same way (or similarly) after seeing "Expelled".
Is it not possible to put together a good documentary?
|
|
Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis ("Why do we need a 100-year-old theory of evolution when the Bible has been around for 2,000 years? Betcha can't answer that!"). I just felt I should point out that, by that argument, we should all convert to Hinduism and be done with it.
None of that is directed at you, Moff. I think Sebastian hit it on the head when he remarked that Christianity could easily have a much worse spokesperson than you have been, and continue to be.
That's all right. I just saw "Religulous" last night. I was fine through the first 95% of the movie -- through the trucker interviews, the amusement park workers, and so on. It was about what I expected. But then his closing remarks which had little to nothing to do with the previous 95% of the movie in which he basically said that all religion is evil and must be stamped out regardless the cost. So we should all become that which we are trying to end. I mean, he basically said that the Holocaust didn't happen because "Hitler was a mass murdering F***head as many important historians have said". It happened because a few people in his mammoth empire claimed to be Christian. What?
Of course, you probably felt the same way (or similarly) after seeing "Expelled".
Is it not possible to put together a good documentary?
It's certainly possible. But it's much harder to put together a good documentary on faith/lack of faith as it instantly becomes polarising and if it isn't, no one watches.
|
|
If Adam Warlock turns up now, I'm going home before he turns purple again.By the same token, by throwing Jesus in their face, you are effectively calling Hindus idiots for their belief in Trimurti... [note: there are no 3700 year old texts referring to JC]Kirth, you ok? A few of your posts were a little antagonistic -- especially from you. Did something happen in your neck of the woods recently?Naw, just kind of at the end of my tether for the same tired old arguments that get repeated ad nauseum no matter how thoroughly they're refuted, as if repeating them will somehow make them true. Especially the "older = more likely to be correct" one, which I hear on a daily basis ("Why do we need a 100-year-old theory of evolution when the Bible has been around for 2,000 years? Betcha can't answer that!"). I just felt I should point out that, by that argument, we should all convert to Hinduism and be done with it.
None of that is directed at you, Moff. I think Sebastian hit it on the head when he remarked that Christianity could easily have a much worse spokesperson than you have been, and continue to be.
Actually you are all joining the church i'm starting.
The Church of Universal Truth
- String Theory invalidates religion and evolution.
- The Universe is debris of change in possibility.
- Time is contunuous change in Possibility.
- The Singularity is a moment of change in possibility.
- Only life can create change in possibility, and only from outside the Universe.
Church of Universal Truth Secrets
Secret #1:Stack with treacle/honey/maple syrup/golden syrup and butter in spaces.
I just saw "Religulous" last night. I was fine through the first 95% of the movie -- through the trucker interviews, the amusement park workers, and so on. It was about what I expected. But then his closing remarks which had little to nothing to do with the previous 95% of the movie in which he basically said that all religion is evil and must be stamped out regardless the cost.
Of course, you probably felt the same way (or similarly) after seeing "Expelled".
Right on the nose, on both accounts. My thoughts on Religulous were maybe even more scathing than yours: why only interview crazy theme park dudes that call themselves "Jesus," as if they represent Christianity? What a load of crap. I generally find Bill Mahar amusing, but the movie was a waste of two hours.
And don't get me started on Expelled, which consists of two hours of misrepresentations and outright falsehoods lifted directly from "Conservapedia.com."
I do find it amusing that both movies were so quick to pull the Nazi card -- to try and make exactly opposite, but equally fallacious points!
A Flock of Dodos was more coherent, better balanced, used far more representative interviewees, and made a final point that actually followed almost inescapably from the rest of the film.
Sebastian addressed the other point so I'm going to ignore it for now.Another thing I wanted to address is the idea that we should be respectful of these religions because so many people around the world believe in them... excuse me?
Just because a lot of people believe the same thing, that automatically makes them right (yes, even atheists too)?
People used to believe the earth was flat, should we have stopped questioning that too?
Thousands of people believed (some still do) that those of jewish faith were the root of all evil, should we have stood idly by while they were "taken care of?"
Or that muslims are all terrorists just waiting to flood the western world and behead everyone... should we believe them and just fire the nuke before it's too late?
Sorry, mass delusions doesn't equal truth.
See, that's an interesting statment to me. Interesting in the sense that what I see Sebastian argue is that e.g. the bible, or religious dogma in general, reflects human psychology (which I agree with *pop - sizzle*) and the reason why it does that is because it's written by humans, for humans.
So, are you agreeing that this is the case, that those religious texts are not divinely inspired, but fully human, with all that entails?Or are you perhaps saying that humans are such a reflection of god(s) that he/she/it/they possess the same human psychological traits?
As for this -- is it really possible for you to misrepresent me any more?
I said none of this. Not even close. It's not even worth refuting. It's not even implied.
My sincerest apologies Moff, I didn't in any way want to imply that you believed any of the examples I gave. I should have made a separate post with the second part of the post where I quoted you, since it really was a wholly different issue (but I got lazy and just continued in the same post). Again, sorry for that.
I just wanted to give examples of how you cannot always just go with what a lot of people believe at the truth, just because a lot of people believe it.Like Sebastian (aarghh, why does it burn so much to agree with him?), I also think that you are one of the most level headed believers I've met and I'd like to commend you on that. Not only in this discussion, but from the "civil religious discussion" thread too.
As for the good that religion does. I can't speak for all of them, but the denomination that I belong to -- the tsunami hit India, the leaders of the denomination met that day, came up with a plan and were there helping people the next day. They then continued to help people out for the next 2 years. Long after the rest of the world forgot about the incident. Same thing with the hurricane a few years ago. Same thing with the earthquake in China (which was more difficult because China pretty much refused assistance initially). Our denomination is actively working towards ending slavery with a number of other religious organizations. We are part of a religious organization that works with poverty stricken places to help them get clean water, food and education (and not "propaganda" education or else I wouldn't be part of it). Actually, I don't know of anything that the denomination that I belong to has ever been involved with that is anything even remotely like what you have described. But if you want to believe that because of what I believe that it puts me in the same group as what you described -- well, more power to you.
Not at all, Moff. I am in awe of the capacity you and your group has shown and even though I haven't in any way been personally influenced by any of those natural disasters, I'd like to thank you and your fellow aid workers for what you have done.
It does make me want to ask a few questions, though.Would you have joined in this effort if it had been a non-religious led effort in your local community?
What prompted you to join this effort? Was it a sense of duty to your fellow man, a sense of "having to do good" (mayhaps spurred on by the fear of ending up "you know where" if you didn't?), for fun, out of compassion or something else entirely?
Also, in what way do you think your faith played into whatever your motivation was?
Do you think you would have joined in the effort if you had been non-religious (I know that can be a tough one to answer)?
- damn, it's starting to sound like an interrogation or a school essay project. ;-)
It's really the ultimate catch-22 for Christians. Idiot, bad, evil "Christians" are the ones that get the press time. And then Christians aren't supposed to advertise all the good that they do since then it makes them look arrogant rather than practicing humility. So then what ends up happening is that we get lumped together with all the psychos.
The thing is, though, that it's not just the psychos out there (like all the big names which has been mentioned earlier). It's everyday people all around the world, who commit vile atrocities on a daily basis, based on what they believe their god wants them to do.
|
|
You've got a lot here and I won't address it all. But regardless, thanks for the clarifications.
See, that's an interesting statment to me. Interesting in the sense that what I see Sebastian argue is that e.g. the bible, or religious dogma in general, reflects human psychology (which I agree with *pop - sizzle*) and the reason why it does that is because it's written by humans, for humans.
So, are you agreeing that this is the case, that those religious texts are not divinely inspired, but fully human, with all that entails?
Or are you perhaps saying that humans are such a reflection of god(s) that he/she/it/they possess the same human psychological traits?
That's really a tough couple of questions. What exactly does "divinely inspired" look like? How would one know for certain it was divinely inspired? For me personally -- I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. The further related statement is that I guess that I also kind of need to believe that the people who basically compiled the Bible were pretty well divinely inspired as well. That's not really the problem, however. The problem is that I also believe that interpretations are not necessarily divinely inspired -- and therein lies many of the problems that you presented.
I just wanted to give examples of how you cannot always just go with what a lot of people believe at the truth, just because a lot of people believe it.
My point with bringing up quantity of people had nothing to do with "majority rules" or anything even close. My point was that saying something that you know ahead of time that millions of people believe is stupid and that by extension, they are therefore stupid is not really the best way to open up a nice discussion. Millions of people don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Millions of people do believe in God. Rather than saying that it's exactly the same thing and therefore calling people stupid, it might actually be more productive to try and find out why the two are viewed differently. They're not the same thing and implying that they are does nothing to promote the discussion.
Would you have joined in this effort if it had been a non-religious led effort in your local community?
What prompted you to join this effort? Was it a sense of duty to your fellow man, a sense of "having to do good" (mayhaps spurred on by the fear of ending up "you know where" if you didn't?), for fun, out of compassion or something else entirely?
Also, in what way do you think your faith played into whatever your motivation was?
Do you think you would have joined in the effort if you had been non-religious (I know that can be a tough one to answer)?
A lot of really good questions. But I kind of feel like you don't see this quite how I do. There will always be some form of disaster or another. These things are happening all the time all over the world. It's not the individual cause that's important to me. What is important to me is that we are ready for the next thing that comes along. In addition, I also know and trust this organization. Something along 98% of the donations make it to the actual cause. That percent is almost unheard of elsewhere. They also report to the people (ie. me) and let them know of their progress. As for the individual questions --
Would I have joined this if it were non-religious? A hesitant "yes". Not because of the religion, but because the people in charge of the monies report what they are doing directly with me. I'm not sure how many other organizations do that -- religious or otherwise. Let me put it another way -- American Idol does that huge phone-a-thon to collect money to help people in Africa with malaria and other illnesses and so on. It's a great cause and I'm glad that they are doing it. But if you donate to that, do you get a report on how much money they collected? How much money went to overhead costs? How much money actually was spent on medicine? How do you know that your money was well spent? I don't mean to downplay what they are doing -- they are doing a great thing. I just like to have a little more control over what happens with my monies.
What prompted me to join this effort? Not much really. And I don't see it as much of an "effort". ;-)
Part of the problem with this question is that it isn't ever a specific cause or "effort". I have no idea what the next big problem will be. It's hard to join something that hasn't even happened yet. We just need to be ready the next time something happens.
Was it a sense of duty to my fellow man, a sense of "having to do good" (mayhaps spurred on by the fear of ending up "you know where" if I didn't?), for fun, out of compassion or something else entirely? I don't know. Mostly because I feel it's the right thing to do. It's not "for fun". I can find much more personally enjoyable things to do with my money. It really isn't because I'm scared of going to Hell. (I don't remember reading -- "if you don't give your money to a good cause you will be forever damned".) I don't know that it's out of compassion -- it's hard to feel compassionate about something that hasn't happened yet. Possibly "duty" is closer. I currently have the means. Others don't or possibly won't. Is it not selfish if you can help but don't? The victims of the tsunami needed assistance when it happened. Most other organizations try and collect money after the incident. This way seems to make more sense to me.
Also, in what way do I think my faith played into whatever my motivation was? A lot of Christianity -- at least what Christ taught -- is a lot about helping others. I'm not going to pretend that Christianity has the monopoly on this -- it doesn't. But sure, I'm sure that my faith played a fair amount into my "motivation". But it's also not quite as simple as that. See the next question...
Do I think I would have joined in the effort if I had been non-religious (I know that can be a tough one to answer)? What you're asking is -- if you were a different person, would you still have made the same decision. I'd like to think so, but unfortunately probably not -- at least not to the extent I currently am. I'm a fairly selfish person and it seems to be against my nature to help others "just 'cause". I'm not saying that I wouldn't -- just probably not in an on-going way like I am currently.
The thing is, though, that it's not just the psychos out there (like all the big names which has been mentioned earlier). It's everyday people all around the world, who commit vile atrocities on a daily basis, based on what they believe their god wants them to do.
Again, people don't need religion to find a reason to be evil. I just think that "religion" makes evil acts a little easier to quantify. 9/11? Religion. Holocaust? Religion. Bombing abortion clinics? Religion. KKK? Religion. It doesn't matter. Therefore it is Religion that is evil -- right? Did Jesus really teach "vile atrocities"? If anything he was trying to end "vile atrocities". But never underestimate man's ability to twist anything to their own end. (Look at taxes.) For some reason, religion seems to be a slightly easier medium to manipulate. And, there are FAR more "everyday people all around the world, who commit" incredibly good acts based on what they believe their god wants them to do. But apparently it's just silly to focus on the good that people do.
That was long. Hope that helped.
|
|
How could string theory invalidate the existence of God? Wouldn't it validate it, since more realities = more chances to actually find the truth of the matter.
Then again God is in the definition is it not?
Is science actually God?
God is everywhere and everything supposedly, that would be energy then? Photons perhaps? Then again there's space between the smallest atoms...so is God a jiffy? Since that is the time it takes to cross a plank?
Or if we live in a matrix, a freethinking AI, in a preprogrammed world, God is the architect?
Can't we all just get along? =D