Interestingly enough, you don't have to understand the finer points of English. For example, you don't have to understand that "women" is a fucking plural noun, and effects doesn't mean what you think it means.
Interestingly enough, isn't criticizing small spelling errors on the internet the equivalent of screaming "Well, you're a poo head!". You ignore my argument and make a useless, mocking post.
Yes, it is. The appropriate response is to ignore him and hope he goes away. Trolls live on attention.
I wasn't trolling. I'm just OCD and have to correct those things. It had nothing to do with him or his argument.
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
Sorry, I should have clarified that in this case I was referring to only spiritual beliefs. If people could separate those from their morals and values in some way then there shouldn't be any friction about whether or not you believe in god.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
MVMosin, are you familiar with Occam's razor? When doing science, it is believed that the most parsimonous, or least complicated explanation is the best one. Now, it is true that we can not explain (at least yet...) what caused the universe to come into existance, with our present models breaking down in singularities and so on.
But let's say that we introduce a creator as the original mover. And he/she/it will be just that, an original mover since nothing we observe about the world today with scientific methods indicates that something supernatural is afoot now or has been in the past.
Ok, now we have two theories. One with a creator and one without. In all other aspects they are equivalent. But one is more complex than the other... introducing a god/creator/something that started the universe has no better explanatory power than not introducing god and is less parsimonous.
So from a scientific stand-point, the belief in a creator is not as good a theory. Anyway, english is not my native language and I'm sure one of the more prolific posters here will come up with something better soon...
Edit: NOT as good a theory... oops.
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
That's the wrong "to," shryke. Too long, not to long.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
But my point is, why is that belief valid and belief in astrology is not? Neither can be verified one way or the other, both require you to stretch beyond what is known and embrace something fantastic based on nothing more then faith.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
But my point is, why is that belief valid and belief in astrology is not? Neither can be verified one way or the other, both require you to stretch beyond what is known and embrace something fantastic based on nothing more then faith.
Astrology can fairly easily be verified. It makes perdictions about the future. Show that those perdictions are true. Bam, done. If they aren't, it's bullshit, just like we think it is.
Can you show me evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Or that you don't go to heaven or hell when you die? My religion makes no claims that you can simply verify or disprove, and thus becomes a matter of faith. If you don't have faith in it, that's your deal.
That's the wrong "to," shryke. Too long, not to long.
Nock it off.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
But you have no reason to believe the sentient, human-looking and acting beings exist. It is stupid and foolish to think Jesus was anything but a human barring evidence that other, similar beings exist, of which there is none.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
But my point is, why is that belief valid and belief in astrology is not? Neither can be verified one way or the other, both require you to stretch beyond what is known and embrace something fantastic based on nothing more then faith.
Astrology can fairly easily be verified. It makes perdictions about the future. Show that those perdictions are true. Bam, done. If they aren't, it's bullshit, just like we think it is.
Can you show me evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Or that you don't go to heaven or hell when you die? My religion makes no claims that you can simply verify or disprove, and thus becomes a matter of faith. If you don't have faith in it, that's your deal.
That isn't what astrology claims at all. Astrology claims that the position of the planets and constellations have an influence over our lives. That's it. And that is neither provable nor-disprovable.
Likewise, while I cannot prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, I don't really have to prove that. Since that incident no one has ever seen someone rise from the dead, therfore I can make the assumption that it likely did not happen. Science and medicine support my claim. You have a book whose only support is itself, one that has been mistranslated and influenced by 2000 years of meddling... I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Why does believing the planets have an impact on our lives or future become bullshit but believe a Jewish carpenter rose from the dead does not?
Because popular opinion says so? That seems like a bullshit answer.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
But you have no reason to believe the sentient, human-looking and acting beings exist. It is stupid and foolish to think Jesus was anything but a human barring evidence that other, similar beings exist, of which there is none.
What "sentient, human-looking and acting being" are you talking about here? I'm not sure what your getting at.
shryke on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
I give Dawkins leeway, because the uber-religious sect treat him pretty badly, and I can see how he became jaded.
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
What exactly are you trying to say here? I'm well aware of that distinction. From what you wrote I got the impression that you claimed both theories are equally valid, but maybe I missunderstood you. What I tried to say was that at least as far as concerning what started the universe, the theory that invokes a creator is worse than the one that does not. They are not equivalent.
Lodbrok on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
No love for the agnostics. Again. I need to get off this fence.
There's nothing wrong with it. I think of God a lot like gravity. We can infer gravity... but that's about it. Even Newton thought the idea was absurd. Much the same we can infer the existence of God... and the same, many people think the idea is absurd. But we are here, aren't we? We may never know why or how we are here, so we infer God... much the same as we don't know what makes or why an apple falls, we just know that it does.
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
Murago wrote:
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
Suds Wrote:
Sorry, I should have clarified that in this case I was referring to only spiritual beliefs. If people could separate those from their morals and values in some way then there shouldn't be any friction about whether or not you believe in god.
It would be pure leetsauce if that's the way things worked.
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
What exactly are you trying to say here? I'm well aware of that distinction. From what you wrote I got the impression that you claimed both theories are equally valid, but maybe I missunderstood you. What I tried to say was that at least as far as concerning what started the universe, the theory that invokes a creator is worse than the one that does not. They are not equivalent.
That isn't what astrology claims at all. Astrology claims that the position of the planets and constellations have an influence over our lives. That's it. And that is neither provable nor-disprovable.
Oh, they do have an influence. The moon affects the tides, which has a definate impact on my life if I live on the coast.
What Astrology claims is that they have a direct and predictable influence on my life that extends to things outside of that which science can observe. That's the bullshit part.
Astrology (why are we still talking about this again?) makes claims. Those claims can be disproven. There, done.
Likewise, while I cannot prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, I don't really have to prove that. Since that incident no one has ever seen someone rise from the dead, therfore I can make the assumption that it likely did not happen. Science and medicine support my claim. You have a book whose only support is itself, one that has been mistranslated and influenced by 2000 years of meddling... I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
Nope, no one has risen from the dead since then. But then, no one since then has been the son of God either.
In this case, the only accounts we have of this incident say that Jesus did rise from the dead. You can say that you don't believe those accounts or that their not good enough proof. But there's no counter-proof against it, other then saying "Well, I haven't seen it happen or heard of it happening since then", which isn't proof of anything either.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
Oh my gosh this is rediculous.
First off you completly forgot about congress.
And I mean, come on.
"Oh no! A man's beliefs are infulancing decisions! Run for the hills! We're all doomed!"
I mean, seriously.
Why the heck isn't a man allowed to have an opinion, just because he's in power?
Ok... obviously you see things differently than I do then. Would you like to elaborate? I'm honestly curious about how you can come to this conclusion.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you want to be a dick about this, that's cool too, but you're not going to get anywhere. I'm going to ignore the many, many branches of Christian theology, many of which hold that Jesus was fully human, and just go for Jesus was human. Given that he was at least the exact likeness of a human (which even the Bible does explicitly say), this is also an obvious fact that everyone should recognize: something that is indistinguishable from a human is, well, human.
If there's evidence that Jesus wasn't human, you can present it now.
Can you show me evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?
Different kind of question, but here we go.
You're the one making a positive claim (not only that, but a claim that would seem to contradict everything we know about the physical world); the burden of proof is on you.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Here's something he wrote. If you find everything in it to be a straw man as you suggested earlier, do tell me. It's quite possible that there's some in there - I just skimmed it to make sure it was at least relevant to the philosophy of science.
Yes, genious. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
...I have to wonder if you actually said "genious.
Sorry, my OCD again. Anyway, the point of that post is that you're implying that it's explicitly wrong to believe in something you can't prove exists. You certainly have the right to not believe it lacking evidence, but you can't say it's wrong.
By the same token, he can't expect you to agree with him unless he shows you some evidence. Incidentally, I would love to see evidence.
Although, typically, the only evidence Christians provide on this subject is "Nobody can find his body." Which brings us back to the argument from ignorance.
So, if he can provide evidence, I'd be interested in hearing what it is. If he can't, then the only thing we can do and remain gentlemen is to agree to disagree about it. He believes it on faith, we don't.
Edit: You fixed the genious. My obsessive compulsive behaviour is pleased.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
What exactly are you trying to say here? I'm well aware of that distinction. From what you wrote I got the impression that you claimed both theories are equally valid, but maybe I missunderstood you. What I tried to say was that at least as far as concerning what started the universe, the theory that invokes a creator is worse than the one that does not. They are not equivalent.
They are.
So you're saying the Occam was totally off his rocker?
The universe has been and always will be, for the entirety of eternity. The Big Bang was the start of both time and space. There was no "before" the Big Bang, and there will be no "after" it. Time starts and ends at singularities (well, the universe could go on infinitely expanding, similar deal). This is a pretty well-accepted theory.
Thus, the Big Bang needs nothing to start it, as it is the beginning condition of the universe. This assumes that for A to cause B, A must precede B. If there is no time before B, then there is no room for it to be caused by anything. Barring analysis of dimensions beyond the ones we can now observe, this isn't likely to change.
However, let's just consider for the moment that it DOES need something to start it, and that we are making the assumption that everything needs to be created by something else. Your explanation is that Gof created the universe, which immediately begs the question: what created Gof? We're right back where we started, and this is the essence of Occam's Razor: do not introduce unneeded elements. Spontaneity -> Universe! is going to be a better theory than Spontaneity -> Gof -> Universe! because it has fewer unneeded elements.
As another bit of fun: let's assume that God doesn't need a cause, or can cause himself, in which it turns out that I'm God. You see, because God is unbound by time or causality, he obviously possesses the power to do things in the past. Because he's omnipotent, he can thus make himself God. So, I'm God because I made myself God in the future, when I was God because I had made myself God in the past. Causality is fun when you throw it out the window.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
And just why is that? If purely secular views are already being taught in school, there can be no harm in covering the viewpoints of pagan and monotheistic faiths as well.
As long as they are being addressed in humanities classes, comparitive religion courses, and the like, no problem whatsoever.
Humans do not rise from the dead. This is an obvious fact everyone should recognize.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you want to be a dick about this, that's cool too, but you're not going to get anywhere. I'm going to ignore the many, many branches of Christian theology, many of which hold that Jesus was fully human, and just go for Jesus was human. Given that he was at least the exact likeness of a human (which even the Bible does explicitly say), this is also an obvious fact that everyone should recognize: something that is indistinguishable from a human is, well, human.
If there's evidence that Jesus wasn't human, you can present it now.
As a Catholic, we believe that Jesus is both human and God. I can't speak for other faiths. And who's being a dick about this?
Can you show me evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?
Different kind of question, but here we go.
You're the one making a positive claim (not only that, but a claim that would seem to contradict everything we know about the physical world); the burden of proof is on you.
See my post above. You can't argue that something is false just because there's no evidence it isn't true. I feel there's no hard proof either way, so it's simply a matter of faith in the end.
Here's something he wrote. If you find everything in it to be a straw man as you suggested earlier, do tell me. It's quite possible that there's some in there - I just skimmed it to make sure it was at least relevant to the philosophy of science.
I didn't anything attacking religion in there. Only him talking about science.
And just why is that? If purely secular views are already being taught in school, there can be no harm in covering the viewpoints of pagan and monotheistic faiths as well.
As long as they are being addressed in humanities classes, comparitive religion courses, and the like, no problem whatsoever.
Do you know what an argument over religion is, if you boil it down to the basics? It's an argument about who's got the better imaginary friend. Neither side can prove or disprove the facts about said imaginary friend, so it gets pointless, quick. My view is, have your beliefs, but be respectful of others. If you believe God made the world in 6 days, and chilled on the seventh, yippee. Don't try to convince me of it just because I prefer to think that we all evolved. Be considerate. There's no way to prove evolution, no way to prove divine creation. There's also no way to prove whether or not Jesus came back to life.
This thread is not about proving or disproving the existence of one or more gods.
Believers, accept that if your faith makes any claims about the physical universe, they may one day be disproven. Also accept that the "you can't disprove my belief" loophole generally applies to any similar beliefs, including diametrically opposed ones. So it's not really that shit-hot a loophole. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you have a non-rational belief. Edit: and I say that as a religious person.
Nonbelievers, stop trying to use Occam to disprove any non-rational beliefs. It doesn't work, in any sense of the word "work". All you can reliably say in most cases is that the belief is very improbable, and since I've now said it you can safely not even bother doing that.
How about we all talk instead about what can and should be done about fundamentalism.
No love for the agnostics. Again. I need to get off this fence.
There's nothing wrong with it. I think of God a lot like gravity. We can infer gravity... but that's about it. Even Newton thought the idea was absurd. Much the same we can infer the existence of God... and the same, many people think the idea is absurd. But we are here, aren't we? We may never know why or how we are here, so we infer God... much the same as we don't know what makes or why an apple falls, we just know that it does.
Well, I'll put a finer point on it (I usually don't get the time to do lengthier posts, but in this case): things are so damn polarized right now with religion (faith) vs. science (logic). I've been going over this shit in my head for years, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that it's impossible to reconcile logic and faith--the two seem mutually exlusive. So, when I say agnostic and "on the fence," what I really mean is I don't believe either side will ever come up with answers for questions like "how/why did the universe begin?" or "what happens when we die?" Furthermore, I believe that the answers to those questions are so far beyond our understanding that we would not be able to process them. We're already running into serious walls with our more radical theoretical physics (see string theory, M-theory).
Personally, I don't infere much of anything with these types of debates and have been avoiding them for the most part--it's like a futile tug of war game. I'd love to see Dawkins and Robertson go at it in a no-rules cage match--I wouldn't pick sides but I'd laugh my ass off watching them beat each other into bloody pulps.
If there is a "God," it would be all of the things that we could never possibly know about reality, and I think that's kind of the point as as it should be, nothing more, nothing less.
On the gravity thing: Newtown may have thought it was absurd, but he didn't have a deeper understanding of what was actually going on. We had to wait for Einstein to figure out the real deal--what we call gravity is actually the warping of spacetime caused by the mass of objects. And we've gotten to the point that we can make observations and predictions with all of that. That's just the nature of the scientific process--little steps that eventually allow us to figure out bigger and bigger shit, but it doesn't have an end, nor should it.
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Wait, what branches of Christianity hold that Jesus was merely human?
I was under the impression that the divinity of Christ was a litmus test for Christianity. The only religion I can think of that allows for a non-divine Christ that is vaguely christian-related is Unitarian Universalism, and while I love those guys to death, they really aren't Christian, strictly speaking.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
And you must keep skipping over my arguments where I show you that, unlike whether Jesus rose from the dead, Astrology CAN be proved or disproved. Astrology makes predictions that can be said to be either true or false. It says "such and such will happen" and if it doesn't, then we know it's wrong.
That's the difference between that belief and my belief in God. Astrology can be tested and proved or falsified. The resurrection of Jesus has very little evidence either way, and therefore cannot be proved true or proved false. Therefore, it's simply a matter of faith.
This thread is not about proving or disproving the existence of one or more gods.
Believers, accept that if your faith makes any claims about the physical universe, they may one day be disproven. Also accept that the "you can't disprove my belief" loophole generally applies to any similar beliefs, including diametrically opposed ones. So it's not really that shit-hot a loophole. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you have a non-rational belief. Edit: and I say that as a religious person.
Nonbelievers, stop trying to use Occam to disprove any non-rational beliefs. It doesn't work, in any sense of the word "work". All you can reliably say in most cases is that the belief is very improbable, and since I've now said it you can safely not even bother doing that.
How about we all talk instead about what can and should be done about fundamentalism.
This is a correct statement.
As for fundamentalism... As long as we're talking about the regular, non-militant kind, I say ignore them. Unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that; a person's traditional and religious beliefs are nobody's business but his own.
I meant as electives, not in science, yes I do, and they can be depending on the context, in that order.
Good.
No you really don't.
No. If you believe in a theory (a real theory) then it is a theory still, and not a "belief". No spiritual belief that is derived from faith, rather than rigorous scientific experimentation can ever be a theory.
I meant as electives, not in science, yes I do, and they can be depending on the context, in that order.
Good.
No you really don't.
No. If you believe in a theory (a real theory) then it is a theory still, and not a "belief". No spiritual belief that is derived from faith, rather than rigorous scientific experimentation can ever be a theory.
Quite, yes I do, and a concept which one person is content to hold in faith while another finds evidence for can be presented as a belief for the former and a theory for the latter.
Posts
I wasn't trolling. I'm just OCD and have to correct those things. It had nothing to do with him or his argument.
Sorry, I should have clarified that in this case I was referring to only spiritual beliefs. If people could separate those from their morals and values in some way then there shouldn't be any friction about whether or not you believe in god.
Just, you know, FYI, Jesus = not human. At least, not JUST human. See, this is the kind of shit you may wanna know before you criticize.
If you wanna bring out some Dawkins, go ahead. It's been to long since I read any for me to remember anything specific.
Well, that Jewish carpenter was the son of God, and God raised him from the dead. It's not like it was just any random jewish carpenter or something. Now from here we can go into arguments about the existence of God, but is that really where you wanna go with this?
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
That's the wrong "to," shryke. Too long, not to long.
But my point is, why is that belief valid and belief in astrology is not? Neither can be verified one way or the other, both require you to stretch beyond what is known and embrace something fantastic based on nothing more then faith.
Damn you too hell!!
Astrology can fairly easily be verified. It makes perdictions about the future. Show that those perdictions are true. Bam, done. If they aren't, it's bullshit, just like we think it is.
Can you show me evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Or that you don't go to heaven or hell when you die? My religion makes no claims that you can simply verify or disprove, and thus becomes a matter of faith. If you don't have faith in it, that's your deal.
Nock it off.
But you have no reason to believe the sentient, human-looking and acting beings exist. It is stupid and foolish to think Jesus was anything but a human barring evidence that other, similar beings exist, of which there is none.
That isn't what astrology claims at all. Astrology claims that the position of the planets and constellations have an influence over our lives. That's it. And that is neither provable nor-disprovable.
Likewise, while I cannot prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, I don't really have to prove that. Since that incident no one has ever seen someone rise from the dead, therfore I can make the assumption that it likely did not happen. Science and medicine support my claim. You have a book whose only support is itself, one that has been mistranslated and influenced by 2000 years of meddling... I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
What "sentient, human-looking and acting being" are you talking about here? I'm not sure what your getting at.
Sentry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
This is a bad thing.
"Not being better" isn't the same as "not as good."
What exactly are you trying to say here? I'm well aware of that distinction. From what you wrote I got the impression that you claimed both theories are equally valid, but maybe I missunderstood you. What I tried to say was that at least as far as concerning what started the universe, the theory that invokes a creator is worse than the one that does not. They are not equivalent.
There's nothing wrong with it. I think of God a lot like gravity. We can infer gravity... but that's about it. Even Newton thought the idea was absurd. Much the same we can infer the existence of God... and the same, many people think the idea is absurd. But we are here, aren't we? We may never know why or how we are here, so we infer God... much the same as we don't know what makes or why an apple falls, we just know that it does.
I just don't understand why everyone cares so much what everyone else believes.
Murago wrote:
George Bush has strong republican beliefs that do not coincide with my personal beliefs. George Bush has been elected to President of the United States. The president of the united states appoints Justices of the Supreme Court. The supreme court decides upon laws for the United States, which i in turn have to follow. This means if George Bush is in office long enough, he will appoint like minded people (whos beliefs do not coincide with mine) in seats of power.
(The next statement is not a burn on bush)
No one cared about Hitler till the shit hit the fan. We need to actively participate in society and movements, lest jews, or blacks, or gays, or whites, or mexicans, or straight people, or democrats or republicans or men or women or w/e is thrown into the fucking gas chamber. Our goddamn rights are always at stake, and our ability to CARE (which is lacking) is what keeps us going.
PS -- i don't know how to properly quote somone. I know i know, l2p.
Suds Wrote:
Sorry, I should have clarified that in this case I was referring to only spiritual beliefs. If people could separate those from their morals and values in some way then there shouldn't be any friction about whether or not you believe in god.
It would be pure leetsauce if that's the way things worked.
They are.
Oh, they do have an influence. The moon affects the tides, which has a definate impact on my life if I live on the coast.
What Astrology claims is that they have a direct and predictable influence on my life that extends to things outside of that which science can observe. That's the bullshit part.
Astrology (why are we still talking about this again?) makes claims. Those claims can be disproven. There, done.
Nope, no one has risen from the dead since then. But then, no one since then has been the son of God either.
In this case, the only accounts we have of this incident say that Jesus did rise from the dead. You can say that you don't believe those accounts or that their not good enough proof. But there's no counter-proof against it, other then saying "Well, I haven't seen it happen or heard of it happening since then", which isn't proof of anything either.
As I said, it's a matter of faith in the end.
Yes, genius. That is why the burdon of proof is on him, and not on me.
You don't even know what you're being an idiot about anymore, do you?
Edit: yes, I agree it does come down to faith. Which has nothing to do with science and never should.
Oh my gosh this is rediculous.
First off you completly forgot about congress.
And I mean, come on.
"Oh no! A man's beliefs are infulancing decisions! Run for the hills! We're all doomed!"
I mean, seriously.
Why the heck isn't a man allowed to have an opinion, just because he's in power?
Ok... obviously you see things differently than I do then. Would you like to elaborate? I'm honestly curious about how you can come to this conclusion.
If there's evidence that Jesus wasn't human, you can present it now. Different kind of question, but here we go.
You're the one making a positive claim (not only that, but a claim that would seem to contradict everything we know about the physical world); the burden of proof is on you. Here's something he wrote. If you find everything in it to be a straw man as you suggested earlier, do tell me. It's quite possible that there's some in there - I just skimmed it to make sure it was at least relevant to the philosophy of science.
...I have to wonder if you actually said "genious.
Sorry, my OCD again. Anyway, the point of that post is that you're implying that it's explicitly wrong to believe in something you can't prove exists. You certainly have the right to not believe it lacking evidence, but you can't say it's wrong.
By the same token, he can't expect you to agree with him unless he shows you some evidence. Incidentally, I would love to see evidence.
Although, typically, the only evidence Christians provide on this subject is "Nobody can find his body." Which brings us back to the argument from ignorance.
So, if he can provide evidence, I'd be interested in hearing what it is. If he can't, then the only thing we can do and remain gentlemen is to agree to disagree about it. He believes it on faith, we don't.
Edit: You fixed the genious. My obsessive compulsive behaviour is pleased.
Firstly, if you read the link, you'll see this:
"is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
I think you can figure out which ones me and which ones you.
Also, when did science enter into this? Religion has no place in science. But science does not exclude religion either. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
God, you're being a tremendous douchebag.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
So you're saying the Occam was totally off his rocker?
The universe has been and always will be, for the entirety of eternity. The Big Bang was the start of both time and space. There was no "before" the Big Bang, and there will be no "after" it. Time starts and ends at singularities (well, the universe could go on infinitely expanding, similar deal). This is a pretty well-accepted theory.
Thus, the Big Bang needs nothing to start it, as it is the beginning condition of the universe. This assumes that for A to cause B, A must precede B. If there is no time before B, then there is no room for it to be caused by anything. Barring analysis of dimensions beyond the ones we can now observe, this isn't likely to change.
However, let's just consider for the moment that it DOES need something to start it, and that we are making the assumption that everything needs to be created by something else. Your explanation is that Gof created the universe, which immediately begs the question: what created Gof? We're right back where we started, and this is the essence of Occam's Razor: do not introduce unneeded elements. Spontaneity -> Universe! is going to be a better theory than Spontaneity -> Gof -> Universe! because it has fewer unneeded elements.
As another bit of fun: let's assume that God doesn't need a cause, or can cause himself, in which it turns out that I'm God. You see, because God is unbound by time or causality, he obviously possesses the power to do things in the past. Because he's omnipotent, he can thus make himself God. So, I'm God because I made myself God in the future, when I was God because I had made myself God in the past. Causality is fun when you throw it out the window.
I never said your premise was false. Ever. I said your premise was no different then beliving in astrology, which you DID say was false. I said neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. But, as you are the one making a claim in the affirmative, you are the one who has to provide the evidence. Or fall back on belief, which is fine. But you can't have your belief and diminsh the beliefs of others because there is absolutely no difference between them.
I'm not the one flaming someone for having a mental compulsion.
This, again, is a correct statement.
As long as they are being addressed in humanities classes, comparitive religion courses, and the like, no problem whatsoever.
In science classes? FUCK. NO.
Because you fail to understand science and the real definition of a theory.
No, they aren't.
BELIEFS ARE NOT THEORIES, YOU MORON.
As a Catholic, we believe that Jesus is both human and God. I can't speak for other faiths. And who's being a dick about this?
See my post above. You can't argue that something is false just because there's no evidence it isn't true. I feel there's no hard proof either way, so it's simply a matter of faith in the end.
I didn't anything attacking religion in there. Only him talking about science.
I meant as electives, not in science, yes I do, and they can be depending on the context, in that order.
Believers, accept that if your faith makes any claims about the physical universe, they may one day be disproven. Also accept that the "you can't disprove my belief" loophole generally applies to any similar beliefs, including diametrically opposed ones. So it's not really that shit-hot a loophole. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you have a non-rational belief. Edit: and I say that as a religious person.
Nonbelievers, stop trying to use Occam to disprove any non-rational beliefs. It doesn't work, in any sense of the word "work". All you can reliably say in most cases is that the belief is very improbable, and since I've now said it you can safely not even bother doing that.
How about we all talk instead about what can and should be done about fundamentalism.
Well, I'll put a finer point on it (I usually don't get the time to do lengthier posts, but in this case): things are so damn polarized right now with religion (faith) vs. science (logic). I've been going over this shit in my head for years, and the more I think about it, the more I believe that it's impossible to reconcile logic and faith--the two seem mutually exlusive. So, when I say agnostic and "on the fence," what I really mean is I don't believe either side will ever come up with answers for questions like "how/why did the universe begin?" or "what happens when we die?" Furthermore, I believe that the answers to those questions are so far beyond our understanding that we would not be able to process them. We're already running into serious walls with our more radical theoretical physics (see string theory, M-theory).
Personally, I don't infere much of anything with these types of debates and have been avoiding them for the most part--it's like a futile tug of war game. I'd love to see Dawkins and Robertson go at it in a no-rules cage match--I wouldn't pick sides but I'd laugh my ass off watching them beat each other into bloody pulps.
If there is a "God," it would be all of the things that we could never possibly know about reality, and I think that's kind of the point as as it should be, nothing more, nothing less.
On the gravity thing: Newtown may have thought it was absurd, but he didn't have a deeper understanding of what was actually going on. We had to wait for Einstein to figure out the real deal--what we call gravity is actually the warping of spacetime caused by the mass of objects. And we've gotten to the point that we can make observations and predictions with all of that. That's just the nature of the scientific process--little steps that eventually allow us to figure out bigger and bigger shit, but it doesn't have an end, nor should it.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
I was under the impression that the divinity of Christ was a litmus test for Christianity. The only religion I can think of that allows for a non-divine Christ that is vaguely christian-related is Unitarian Universalism, and while I love those guys to death, they really aren't Christian, strictly speaking.
And you must keep skipping over my arguments where I show you that, unlike whether Jesus rose from the dead, Astrology CAN be proved or disproved. Astrology makes predictions that can be said to be either true or false. It says "such and such will happen" and if it doesn't, then we know it's wrong.
That's the difference between that belief and my belief in God. Astrology can be tested and proved or falsified. The resurrection of Jesus has very little evidence either way, and therefore cannot be proved true or proved false. Therefore, it's simply a matter of faith.
This is a correct statement.
As for fundamentalism... As long as we're talking about the regular, non-militant kind, I say ignore them. Unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that; a person's traditional and religious beliefs are nobody's business but his own.
Good.
No you really don't.
No. If you believe in a theory (a real theory) then it is a theory still, and not a "belief". No spiritual belief that is derived from faith, rather than rigorous scientific experimentation can ever be a theory.
Quite, yes I do, and a concept which one person is content to hold in faith while another finds evidence for can be presented as a belief for the former and a theory for the latter.