Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Religion


  • Please log in to reply
2248 replies to this topic

#1601
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 6 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm glad you understand what I'm saying. I bet you've got me all figured out with what little you've seen of what I have to say. (sarcasm)


Right, because that was necessary?
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 6 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I never said that science isn't plausible, because if you read what I've posted you'll see that I think Quantum Mechanics seems to explain a lot about our universe and what we would consider god. But even Quantum Mechanics doesn't disprove a god.

All I'm saying is that at this time we can't fully determine anything. So anyone taking any HARD stance on an argument that doesn't have any foreseeable answer in the future is, in my opinion, an "argument from ignorance". So it seems we agree on that, but you just don't see yourself at fault here.


I think where I disagree with you is in the nature of science itself. You seem to view science as a direct representation of reality (Realism). I see it as a model of reality used to determine future occurences— an abstraction (Irrealism/Anti-Realism). So from that point of view, taking a 'HARD' stance on such things is perfectly valid, as no matter what we discover, our models will still have exactly the same predictive utillity in the future as they do now.

Now, all I was originally pointing out is that you're comitting a textbook logical fallacy (bolded in the quote), which you just quite clearly were...
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 6 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd also like for you to read what I posted as my religion before assuming things, it might help in determining what you say next time.


Your religion is completely irrelevent to what I've said. I commented on your argument itself, not what it was arguing in favour of. But for the record, I have read about your religious beliefs (I lurk like a bastard =p).

#1602
Myth

Myth
  • Members
  • 4,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 03:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
someone brought up me saying something about the universe being 8 thousand years old. i actually think that God might've evolved the planet over time. Yes, Genesis says 6 days. But how could there have been "days" if the planet wasn't formed, and so it couldn't revolve around the sun? or spin on its axis? and Genesis has a lot of figurative language in it anyways. The idea of evolution is a pretty solid one in my books. But i just think there's no way that evolution could've happened entirely by chance.
what i actually meant by 8 thousand years, is that we only have history records dating back 8 thousand years, to the Sumerian civilization.


Okay, I'm sick of explaining this to people- Evolution did not happen by chance. period. I'm not even going to explain now, just google it.

QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 05:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
but think about this. Africa is one of the most violent places on earth. Is any of that violence the result of religion? No. It all started because of imperialism, and colonization. When the imperialists left, the countries went to hell. People in Africa fight for land, power, resources, and people. The violence there is absolutely barbaric. Kids have their limbs cut off simply because their parents lived a certain village. Girls under the age of 14 are raped because their father fought for the wrong side. Men are executed in front of their families because they refuse to join that faction.
None of this violence, butchery, and anything else you want to call it, is caused by religion. Its actually caused by the lack of religion. The people have nothing to live for except their own greed and desires.
I'm not saying that if you don't have a religion, you'll become a sadistic barbarian. I'm saying that there can be a huge amount of violence and bloodshed even if religion is out of the picture.


Africa's full of violence because it has no religion? What? ALL african civil wars have religious roots. I have no idea where you got that idea from. you cannot be more wrong about africa than what you've just said. Starting from the colonisation- the europians who colonised africa were mainly missionaries, who wanted to rid of the 'evil' pagan religions in the region. Needless to say, they fucked up africa pretty hard.

Moving on to recent wars in africa- mate, they're RELIGIOUS WARS. I have no idea where you've got the idea that religion plays no part in africa. Thats just blatantly wrong. the conflicts in the southern sudan rwanda/burundi/congo, Zimbabwe/South Africa and Sierra Leone/Liberia/Guinea- all religious struggles between the christian/islamic and traditional african beliefs. Religion is THE key factor of legitimising war in africa. Also its important to note that the christians in africa are no better than islamic extremists, brainwashed into believing that they are made immortal by jesus and mary. They wear the crucifix around their neck to symbolise this power while running into battle. Religion is NOT out of the picture in africa. Blood is being shed in the name of god in africa. In parts of africa where christians has power, muslems are considered second class citizens. Ethnicity is hardly the cause of african wars. Google african wars and religion or something seriously. I'm sorry if i sound over-the-top, but what you said is just factually wrong.

#1603
Smiley451

Smiley451
  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota: USA
...i guess you pwned my tender little ass just now icon_razz.gif

my resources told me that the africans were fighting because they believed their governments weren't fullfiling their duties to the people, to change the balance of power, to bring wealth to the hands of the poor... and on and on and on, like any other war that's started and fought because of endless human ambition and because of greed. what you're seeing in countries like this, and in the middle east, and pretty much anywhere where people will start a gruesome war in the name of their god, is not people fighting for religion and all that. it's them giving into their desires and greed and want and undying thirst for excitement; and then justifying it by killing in the name of their god.
The crusaders slaughtered the muslims because the muslims wouldn't trade with them, and regulated trade from the east. so, the Europeans went to war with them. obviously some people were against this initiation of war, so the kings and priests said God wanted it. and that shut up the nay-sayers.
the Europeans would've gone to war with the middle-easterners no matter what god they served. they were just mad because they weren't getting all the trading goods from asia that the middle east was. that was the real issue.
trust me on this, I'm really into medieval history, i've done a lot of research on it for school, and for recreation. (i might not know about africa icon_razz.gif but i know about the crusades and the medieval era.

it may differ from war to war, but wars fought in the name of some god can always be traced to some other, more tangible issue. even the islamic terrorists. why are they attacking america? because they're angry at us for giving the israelites their land back, for setting up military bases in their countries, for "robbing" them of their resources, and for things like that.
History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution will go on forever."

#1604
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
The whole lack of religion argument = no morals is a bogus one. Just in the same way that religion causes war is a bogus argument. Whether or not there is religion there will be war.

Morals are actually a result of evolution, so to have no religion doesn't automatically mean that anarchy and wars will break out. Religion just makes it easier to control a large society by saying what is right and wrong.

Open up any book on the evolution of man or evolutionary psychology and you will see how similar our morals are to lesser things that animals do all the time. Its actually a great survival tool to feel pride and shame based on what you do to benefit your fellow man. I can list a few examples but I got to go out, mebbe later icon_razz.gif



#1605
Smiley451

Smiley451
  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota: USA
I thought evolution was about genetical structure and biological stuffs slowly changing and adapting over time to suit a changing environment. How would a person/animal develop a moral system or a code of conduct by this? Or is my take on evolution misinformed?
History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution will go on forever."

#1606
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 01:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I thought evolution was about genetical structure and biological stuffs slowly changing and adapting over time to suit a changing environment. How would a person/animal develop a moral system or a code of conduct by this? Or is my take on evolution misinformed?


You have a pretty average understanding of evolution. If you actually care, I could suggest a book or 2 for you to read that will explain it properly to you. Most people think its just some theory a crazy scientist made 400 years ago to disprove religion and stick it to the man and that there are many things it doesn't have the explanation for and thus it hasn't been "proved". They say they don't understand how X can affect X, I think its because people like to keep the mysticism behind things like morals and life.

What you have to understand is evolution isn't "random chance" and its not "designed". When things are talked about as "favored" by evolution say such as being strong or being tall, you cant picture a god there saying "this is good" because that goes against the entire point of evolution, making the theory useless. Instead how you should understand it is this: If something is an advantage (generally) it will survive compared to something that is a disadvantage. Thus things that are an advantage live on, slowly weeding out the disadvantages. No one has pre-decided what will be the advantage and what will be the disadvantage like it is imagined when you talk of intelligent design.

Taken from wiki:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

Traits can mean pretty much anything not just genetic traits.

Reputation, altruism, emotions, empathy and sympathy and reasoning are not confined to humans as most people think. Think of it this way, you have a pack of wolves, they live together so they can work as a team to take down large beasts for food and to protect each other... if they didn't have emotions or reputation or reasoning what would stop them from ripping each other apart violently for absolutely no reason?

Vampire bats are probably the easiest explanation of a system of reputation in lower animals. Vampire bats share blood with each other in order to help each other survive, now you may ask, whats stopping one bat from just living off the blood everyone feeds him as opposed to actually going out and finding/working for his own food? The answer is that the bats remember each other by smell alone. If they remember a bat was generous and helped them out with food they will return the favor. If they remember a bat which takes more blood than they give to the society (or just takes) then they don't give that bat a helping hand. They will even go as far as to ostracize the bats who "cheat the system".

Now what does this have to do with evolution? Well say your a starving bat and no one helps you, you die, so you don't pass on your genes to the next generation. But say your starving and your a nice bat and your batty friends come to help you and you live to fight another day and mate and pass on your genes, then the "nice" genes are favored by natural selection. Considering all living creatures want to survive, the bats will want to share food with each other because it increases there survival.

That is the basic concept of "good" and "bad", altruism, looked at in a darwinistic sense. I'm not going to say that the bats have morals and think and reason about what they are doing like humans, its probably just basic instinct. What I'll do instead is list a few gradually more complex forms of social values in animals to show how it little by little gets closer to the level of human morals and reasoning.

Next is a bird that I can not ever remember the name of (which pisses me off to no end because I use this example all the time lol) but basically it has a system of reputation where by the bird who sticks its neck out for the flock by being the "sentinel" or watch tower against other birds of pray, is considered the dominant member of the pack. Because he is doing something so dangerous he has the respect of his peers and also of the women, meaning he gets lots of action and thus gets to pass on his genes more regularly.

Next there are dogs, who love their masters more than themselves, who will defend you at the drop of a hat ect, another example of altruism.

Then we have apes like chimpanzees and gorillas which are a whole world apart from the lesser animals... ...Ok I'm slowly getting bored of typing so if you want to know more I shall link you stuff to read instead icon_biggrin.gif Chapters 3 - 6 comment on what I'm saying

But basically what I'm trying to demonstrate is that showing good will, looking out for your peers, helping them when they are in need, mutual aid, sympathy, empathy, shame and approval are evident in animals. To have the approval of your peers is a beneficial thing to your survival.

Now this brings us to another thing you may not of heard of. Sexual selection . As opposed to just competing with your environment to survive, sexual selection is competing with your own species to mate, this also has an effect on your morals because generally the females would not mate with the "cheats" of the society and thus the cheats/immoral would not pass on their genes.

So yeah basically morals have gradually developed through natural selection to the level that they are in humans today. Think about why we feel shame when we do something like steal and why we feel proud when we work hard. Why we love those close to us and why we hate that which threatens us... think about it (or better yet READ about it) and you will understand how it all comes to play as survival apart of the survival tools which made us as we are today.

tl; dr: Read books on science dumbasses!



#1607
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,944 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Dec 6 2008, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think where I disagree with you is in the nature of science itself. You seem to view science as a direct representation of reality (Realism). I see it as a model of reality used to determine future occurences— an abstraction (Irrealism/Anti-Realism). So from that point of view, taking a 'HARD' stance on such things is perfectly valid, as no matter what we discover, our models will still have exactly the same predictive utillity in the future as they do now.



So your religion is Science then? And wouldn't putting faith in something that hasn't been proved be a sign of blind faith? You keep saying I have a argument of ignorance, but wouldn't the inverse be just as bad?

Dohregard
Crap IT Manager
Flickr
cdyw1.gif


#1608
Smiley451

Smiley451
  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota: USA
An organism's actions (goodwill towards others, in this case) aren't determined by their genes, right? An organism's actions and choices and therefore moral standpoint is determined by its life experiences. For instance, a child who is raised by a very rich family and is given everything they want without having to work will obviously grow up expecting things to be given to them and will have a big sense of self-importance. Whereas a child who is raised by a family that needs to work hard to pay the bills will learn that the only way to get anything is to work for it. They'll grow up with a good work ethic and will be mostly independent, not relying on others to support them.
The same is true with a person who grows up and lives a life of "bad" morals. Stealing, lying, beating people up, perhaps killing. If they get away with this, it will become natural for them, because they aren't being penalized for their actions. They might get respect from their peers, which will only encourage them more. A person develops this kind of mindset by living a childhood where they are mostly ignored. Their parents fight a lot. They live in a bad neighborhood and need to fend for themselves, using any means necessary. Then they become a person who "lacks moral fiber".

I think i see what you mean by parents passing on their genes. But i have a different take on it, and it relates mostly to humans. A child is very much shaped by their parents. Their mindset, their moral standards, their beliefs, and a lot of other things are strongly influenced by how their parents raise them. I don't think it's DNA, i'd say its just parenting.
I don't really study animals much, so I don't really know if there's a lot of child-rearing and parenting that goes on with animals.
But for people, their moral standards are influenced by their parents and the life-style/environment they live and grew up in.
History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution will go on forever."

#1609
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
An organism's actions (goodwill towards others, in this case) aren't determined by their genes, right? An organism's actions and choices and therefore moral standpoint is determined by its life experiences. For instance, a child who is raised by a very rich family and is given everything they want without having to work will obviously grow up expecting things to be given to them and will have a big sense of self-importance. Whereas a child who is raised by a family that needs to work hard to pay the bills will learn that the only way to get anything is to work for it. They'll grow up with a good work ethic and will be mostly independent, not relying on others to support them.
The same is true with a person who grows up and lives a life of "bad" morals. Stealing, lying, beating people up, perhaps killing. If they get away with this, it will become natural for them, because they aren't being penalized for their actions. They might get respect from their peers, which will only encourage them more. A person develops this kind of mindset by living a childhood where they are mostly ignored. Their parents fight a lot. They live in a bad neighborhood and need to fend for themselves, using any means necessary. Then they become a person who "lacks moral fiber".

I think i see what you mean by parents passing on their genes. But i have a different take on it, and it relates mostly to humans. A child is very much shaped by their parents. Their mindset, their moral standards, their beliefs, and a lot of other things are strongly influenced by how their parents raise them. I don't think it's DNA, i'd say its just parenting.
I don't really study animals much, so I don't really know if there's a lot of child-rearing and parenting that goes on with animals.
But for people, their moral standards are influenced by their parents and the life-style/environment they live and grew up in.

You could say some moral ideas are memes. Memes that utilitise human beings to replicate themselves.

#1610
Smiley451

Smiley451
  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota: USA
QUOTE (dvide @ Dec 7 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You could say some moral ideas are memes. Memes that utilitise human beings to replicate themselves.

I suppose you could say that. A moral idea is pretty close to a meme. In a sense, fads, styles, accents, and so on could be considered memes as well. However memes deal with a society's culture more than anything else. Would you say that every society has a different set of morals, too?
I hadn't really thought about that before. Good point

also, are you inferring that memes, or some memes, are living or conscious? It just kind of sounded like that
History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution will go on forever."

#1611
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 03:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think i see what you mean by parents passing on their genes. But i have a different take on it, and it relates mostly to humans. A child is very much shaped by their parents. Their mindset, their moral standards, their beliefs, and a lot of other things are strongly influenced by how their parents raise them. I don't think it's DNA, i'd say its just parenting.
I don't really study animals much, so I don't really know if there's a lot of child-rearing and parenting that goes on with animals.
But for people, their moral standards are influenced by their parents and the life-style/environment they live and grew up in.


Lol... Your saying the exact same thing I am. Yes genes do have something to do with it, because where would instinct come from if it wasn't hard coded. But higher functions such as the ones we are talking about are taught. Via parenting or personal experience. This is apart of natural selection. If a good person dies, he has no way to pass on his ideas to the next generation/his offspring. Just like if a bad person dies he has no way of passing on his ideas to the next generation. So whichever has a better chance of survival will thrive more.

So when parents teach their kids their moral values they are teaching them the skills that got them through life (like father like son ect) just like a lesser animal teaches its offspring to hunt.

If you read the chapters I mentioned in my other post it will explain it in more detal.

-memes-

Yes this is a very good way to think about our society, and no, studies have shown that over the different nationalities, cultures and what have you morals remain about 70-90% the same. I can also suggest another book to read for that one icon_razz.gif In another study they asked a bunch of people from dfferent walks of life such as Muslim, Christian, buddist, atheist if there was a child drowning in the lake, but if they saved the child, they would dirty their favorite pair of pants, would they save the child. 97% of people answered yes.

This is another point that proves our morals don't come from religion, everyone has exceedingly similar morals when it boils down to it.



#1612
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 7 2008, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So your religion is Science then? And wouldn't putting faith in something that hasn't been proved be a sign of blind faith? You keep saying I have a argument of ignorance, but wouldn't the inverse be just as bad?

I don't think you understood his point of models vs reality. Through failed predictions we now know that Newton's law of gravitation is not the truth, but it is a good enough approximate to still be useful. We sent people to the moon only on Newton's model. We know that atoms don't really have electron shells, but it is still a useful model and is still taught in chemistry classes. These models exist independently of reality. Maths is a model that holds truths within itself, and the system is independent of humans, reality or even the universe itself.

But even if we hit upon a model that does reflect absolute truth, how would we know that we have done it? We could be hooked up to the matrix and from our perspective the universe would look exactly the same. There is no physics experiment to determine that. There may be a whole new system of rules above a certain level, but from within the level we are constrained to we will never know of them. However, to the degree that we can know anything (ie within useful models of science, evidence and reasoned argument etc), we can know a lot.

Where does faith come into this? I do not claim to know, absolutely, that the matrix doesn't exist. But I do say it is completely arbitrary and unreasonable to assume it does. Why believe in an afterlife but not in the matrix? Why believe in God but not in the matrix? Why believe in the 'three planes of existence' but not in the matrix? They are all just arbitrary and baseless speculations. I am not ruling out fun speculative ideas, but there is no reason to actually believe in any of these things. We cannot possibly drain loch ness, but is that a good enough reason to believe in the monster? Ignorance never proves or even remotely supports anything.

Claiming that because physics hasn't disproven God, it somehow supports God, is not a valid argument. Claiming that an infinite number of variables exist in an infinite number of multiverses is also baseless, for we cannot know absolute truth reasons behind the results of Quantum Mechanics. In this universe we can only determine what the probabilties seem to be and make predictions with them, and Quantum Mechanics has done that splendidly. It is even more baseless to say that human beings have some control over the results of Quantum Mechanics, and that it gives us some free choice. This is only speculating an additional component that is unnecessary to the theory. Quantum mechanics supports no such speculations on its own.

We may use a descriptive visual model to aid our understanding, such as the big rubber sheet in relativity theory, but we still don't really know if that model is really the truth. Is spacetime really like a big rubber sheet, or is it something we can use from our own experiences to visualise the outcome? Given how arbitrary the idea of the rubber sheet is, I would say it is probably not the absolute truth behind spacetime.

There is nothing wrong with speculation, but don't talk as though you know something I do not when all you have done is speculated wildly. Anybody can do that. For any given set of experimental data there are probably an infinite number of models people could invent to explain it. Science only works with the one that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest complexities and entities. This is a helpful heuristic called Occam's razor. By using it you will probably run into fewer problems later, when trying to move on from the model, trying to explain it more deeply by examing the complexities and the current unknowns. There is no point in claiming God is ultimately behind the rain, for it is baseless speculation that does not use Occam's razor. If science were to proceed with this hypothesis, scientists would now be faced with the challenge of explaining how exactly is God behind the rain. This is without any evidence that God is even behind the rain, so why go down that road?

We especially should not be teaching speculation in science classrooms as though it were fact. And there is no point arguing that the model currently taught doesn't explain xyz. That may be true, but ignorance doesn't support any speculation. Besides, the limits of a theory (if known) should be explained by any competent science teacher anyway (because science is honest), without any need for any religious agenda.

Science bitches

#1613
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Smiley451 @ Dec 7 2008, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
also, are you inferring that memes, or some memes, are living or conscious? It just kind of sounded like that

nah just a figure of speech icon_razz.gif a lot of people misunderstand evolution and think we use replicators to our end, but really it is more accurate to say memes use us. The same is true of genes (Dawkin's selfish gene). We are like the vessels that genes use to replicate themselves.

If that doesn't make sense:


#1614
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
dvide did a great job of saying most of what I wanted to, but I'll say this anyway.

QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 7 2008, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So your religion is Science then? And wouldn't putting faith in something that hasn't been proved be a sign of blind faith? You keep saying I have a argument of ignorance, but wouldn't the inverse be just as bad?


The reason what you're saying is logically unsound is because you're proposing that a lack of proof for one thing allows us to infer that another is true when that truth is not a direct logical consequence of the lack the other.
Whereas if I say that 'God is unlikely to exist as there is no evidence that he exists' I am not attempting to prove a proposition to be true, I am attempting to show that there is no reason to take a proposition to be true based on the available evidence and reasoning. This doesn't imply that the conclusion of the proposition ('God exists') is untrue, just that there is no current reason for believing it to be so. If I were to say "There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist" that WOULD be an argument from ignorance. But I'm not saying that, so it makes no difference.

QUOTE (dvide)
It is even more baseless to say that human beings have some control over the results of Quantum Mechanics, and that it gives us some free choice. This is only speculating an additional component that is unnecessary to the theory. Quantum mechanics supports no such speculations on its own.


To put it another way...
Schrodinger's cat doesn't fucking prove that Krishna loves you. icon_wink.gif

#1615
some dude

some dude
  • Members
  • 2,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:kumarricon
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Dec 7 2008, 06:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
dvide did a great job of saying most of what I wanted to, but I'll say this anyway.



The reason what you're saying is logically unsound is because you're proposing that a lack of proof for one thing allows us to infer that another is true when that truth is not a direct logical consequence of the lack the other.
Whereas if I say that 'God is unlikely to exist as there is no evidence that he exists' I am not attempting to prove a proposition to be true, I am attempting to show that there is no reason to take a proposition to be true based on the available evidence and reasoning. This doesn't imply that the conclusion of the proposition ('God exists') is untrue, just that there is no current reason for believing it to be so. If I were to say "There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist" that WOULD be an argument from ignorance. But I'm not saying that, so it makes no difference.



To put it another way...
Schrodinger's cat doesn't fucking prove that Krishna loves you. icon_wink.gif

first of all, your name made me lol.

now to the point
lack of proof isnt the reason I dont believe in god: more that what i have seen over the years has discouraged me from believeing that there is a god.

e.g. i went to brazil, and it was pathetic.
people so poor they lived in stick huts on the side of a decrepit dirt road. kids so skinny that they cant stand up and walk, let alone go out and play. crippled beggars, skinny and sickly looking whores that looked like they barely had the strength to stay standing, let alone whore themselves out for money. Skinny delirious drug fiends, reduced to grovelling in the dirt just to get enough money to afford their next fix. I saw a man trying to cross the street run over by a speeding truck, and people around just went about there business like nothing happened. its like death is an everyday thing, and nobody bothers to mourn the passing of another human being.

asia: crippled beggars living in open sewers, enslaved whores, children who beg on the streets who answer to a crime lord who punishes them if they dont beg enough money from tourists. and the situation in china disgusts me. the people are living a lie, not knowing what really goes on. especially the olympics: where did all the beggars and homeless people go? my guess is that they were all killed or shipped off somewhere out of the way, just so china could look good for the visitors.

all of this added on to the atrocities commited in the name of "God", just makes me lean toward the lack of a higher power. what kind of god would allow these people, his people, his creations, to suffer? you look at the news every day, and there is always some article on the front page about somebody being murdered, tortured, or raped. sometimes its about the mass murder of thousands, or millions of people. yet we look at the paper, sigh and go on with our lives. its like the loss of a human life no longer matters.
QUOTE
performance and adrenaline = no boner.
It's the equivalent of trying to get a hard on with 20 old people standing around you with notepads and watching you intently. It just doesn't happen.

#1616
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Dec 7 2008, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
God is unlikely to exist as there is no evidence that he exists

I think it is important to point out here that this is not a statement of faith either. For example, I do not claim to KNOW for certain that the loch ness monster does not exist, because I cannot drain the loch to take a look. But I think I am justified in saying it is highly highly highly highly motherfucking god damn unlikely that there is a monster in that loch.

I cannot deduce the non-existence (although I would like to) of the monster, but I can induce (at least for practicality) that there is no monster. I am not going to operate my life on the assumption that there is a monster, but on the assumption that there is not and it would be a waste of my time seriously investigating it. This is not faith, because I understand the dangers of induction. I am not claiming I know, but that I am highly highly skeptical because it is a very extraordinary claim. You see, the claim of God is still open to me. You seem to think we are just closed-minded sceptics, but this is far from the truth. Because we realise we are using induction we are actually open-minded to the possibility of being corrected, however small we think the possibility is. Open mindedness is not about believing in wishy washy ideas with no evidence... infact to have formed such a belief is to be closed minded on the matter by definition.

A clinical trial is a good example of induction. We cannot possibly logically deduce that a particular drug is not harmful to everyone, but to be practical (ie to actually benifit from medical science) we induce from a large sample that the effect is probably typical of the entire population. This heuristic obvously works a lot of the time (just look at modern medicine). Yes it does not always work, but the process is still justified practically. This is why I disapprove of Dohregard' s constant use of the word proof in science. Proofs do not really exist in science, only very cogent inductions.

To me, being very religious and taking it very seriously would be equivalent to devoting your entire life to the search of the monster. An unreasonable, and ultimately sad, thing to do. No offense to anyone, I'm not saying anybody is sad for believing in God... but that to me it is a sad thing to see lives and minds go to waste on unreasonable assumptions.

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Dec 7 2008, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To put it another way...
Schrodinger's cat doesn't fucking prove that Krishna loves you. icon_wink.gif

Haha I like that better

#1617
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,944 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Dec 7 2008, 05:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
dvide did a great job of saying most of what I wanted to, but I'll say this anyway.



The reason what you're saying is logically unsound is because you're proposing that a lack of proof for one thing allows us to infer that another is true when that truth is not a direct logical consequence of the lack the other.
Whereas if I say that 'God is unlikely to exist as there is no evidence that he exists' I am not attempting to prove a proposition to be true, I am attempting to show that there is no reason to take a proposition to be true based on the available evidence and reasoning. This doesn't imply that the conclusion of the proposition ('God exists') is untrue, just that there is no current reason for believing it to be so. If I were to say "There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist" that WOULD be an argument from ignorance. But I'm not saying that, so it makes no difference.



To put it another way...
Schrodinger's cat doesn't fucking prove that Krishna loves you. icon_wink.gif


I've already had this talk with dvide a few months back, I was just giving a counter argument; though it still seems that we can't get anywhere with it. icon_razz.gif

You can't make an argument against got for the same reason that you just said that I can't make one FOR God, that's quite hypocritical. icon_razz.gif I don't think we could ever find anything out there personally, but what if when we are just about too figure out all of life's puzzles, we find something outside of our and ever other universe? Quite illogical and far fetched as it maybe, it could still happen.

I suppose the more times y'all drive it into my skull the more I realize what you're arguing, but it appears the only way to get people to believe in reason is to make the "argument of ignorance" disappear... by finding answers.

Dohregard
Crap IT Manager
Flickr
cdyw1.gif


#1618
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 7 2008, 02:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't make an argument against got for the same reason that you just said that I can't make one FOR God, that's quite hypocritical. icon_razz.gif

But they're not equal and opposite arguments - that's what I think you're not getting. Is my argument of a practical scepticism towards magical invisible pixies equal and opposite to an argument purporting that the pixies absolutely do exist? And not only do they exist but we should worship and praise them and dedicate our lives to them, and that they disapprove of us having sex before marriage icon_biggrin.gif

Only if I claim to know absolutely that these pixies do not exist do they become equal and opposite arguments. So therefore you're also commiting the fallacy of false dilemma by assuming everybody must either only believe they exist or believe they do not. There are more possibilities. I am literally agnostic with regard to any claim of absolute certainty, but practically I promote scientific scepticism heavily.

QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 7 2008, 02:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think we could ever find anything out there personally, but what if when we are just about too figure out all of life's puzzles, we find something outside of our and ever other universe? Quite illogical and far fetched as it maybe, it could still happen.

Yes, perhaps, but without the evidence today I am still justified in my extreme scepticism today. Perhaps one day we will discover the magical pixies. I just think it's so extremely unlikely as to be negligible, so I am not going to stop enjoying a wonderful sex life and feel guilty about it on the small chance that they might exist and disapprove of me. But as I say, we are open minded to the small possibility. Atheism is a very freeing and beautiful thing once you begin to realise what its implications are. What's more, surely it is equally likely (given no evidence... ignorance) that there are pixies who approve of me having sex icon_biggrin.gif why commit to feeling guilty about it? icon_biggrin.gif

Also consider that when you start adding traits to the magical pixies, such as that they disapprove of us having sex outside of marriage, the probability of their existence + traits necessarily decreases further. So imagine how unlikely I view forms of religion (that go way beyond deism i.e. just claiming there is a God) such as Christianity to be.

#1619
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,944 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (dvide @ Dec 7 2008, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But they're not equal and opposite arguments - that's what I think you're not getting. Is my argument of a practical scepticism towards magical invisible pixies equal and opposite to an argument purporting that the pixies absolutely do exist? And not only do they exist but we should worship and praise them and dedicate our lives to them, and that they disapprove of us having sex before marriage icon_biggrin.gif


You have valid points, but were the fuck did you get pixies from? Why can't you just debate proper vs. throwing insults all over the place?

Being a "holier than thou" atheist will never make your point any stronger.

Its a great point, kind of funny even, but all your doing is scaring conversation away with harsh statements against people of other faiths.

QUOTE (dvide @ Dec 7 2008, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, perhaps, but without the evidence today I am still justified in my extreme scepticism today. Perhaps one day we will discover the magical pixies. I just think it's so extremely unlikely as to be negligible, so I am not going to stop enjoying a wonderful sex life and feel guilty about it on the small chance that they might exist and disapprove of me. But as I say, we are open minded to the small possibility. Atheism is a very freeing and beautiful thing once you begin to realise what its implications are. What's more, surely it is equally likely (given no evidence... ignorance) that there are pixies who approve of me having sex icon_biggrin.gif why commit to feeling guilty about it? icon_biggrin.gif


Generally, I'd say besides the fact that I feel that all matter in the universe is connected to the same fate I'm quite aware that there is no afterlife.

I think that the only way there could be "absolute truth" is that if all possible variables have happened in one universe or the other, so I feel that all universes share an interdependency as well, so Its not like a "god" so much as a delicate formula.

I feel like the universe is itself if one giant organism in a sense, and us as sentient life are kind of the brain of it all. Exploring everything that it has to offer in a since to discover exactly how it all works.

Dohregard
Crap IT Manager
Flickr
cdyw1.gif


#1620
dvide

dvide
  • Members
  • 652 posts
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Dec 7 2008, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have valid points, but were the fuck did you get pixies from? Why can't you just debate proper vs. throwing insults all over the place?

Being a "holier than thou" atheist will never make your point any stronger.

Its a great point, kind of funny even, but all your doing is scaring conversation away with harsh statements against people of other faiths.

I'm sorry but I honestly don't think there is anything insulting about what I just said. Maybe some people will interpret me attacking ideas as attacking them, but it's just cognitive dissonance setting in and I can't avoid that. From the perspective of people with no dissonance I don't think I was even slightly insulting. And ultimately my aim is to try to to move people past the stage of dissonance and shed their condradictory ideas so they will feel harmony.

Religious beliefs especially get a free ride where I believe they should not. Like political ideas or suchlike, religion should be subject to discussion too.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users