Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

But more seriously; when actually discussing things with a person for the first time I certainly do not go straight for the antanonistic approach. Topics on Dakka however... I speak perhaps a little more bluntly, although ultimately my position is the same. If you make a truth claim you need to justify it as ultimately any deviation from "there is nothing" is a positive claim which must be proven as any other claim, scientific, faith based, or anything else must be (akin to how the null hypothesis must be disproven by demonstrating evidence for the positive claim). If people make a claim I feel is wrong I will attempt to refute it - regardless of the topic. It just so happens that most relgious claims are claims that I feel are wrong and can be demonstrated as such... and people love talking about their religious beliefs and how society would be better off if we all followed whatever particular brand of religion they are espousing so it turns out that I end up discussing such subjects with reasonable frequency.

This is a much better response. Very well articulated. I respect your beliefs, and I appreciate you.

Good work everyone. Really great results. Pack it up - let's go ruin a different thread.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
First of all, science does not help us discover reality.

That is kind of expressly what science does... Science helps explain the universe around us by making observations, undertaking testing and suggesting methods of explaining the results of those observations and tests.

Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable.

One can account for the accuracy of instruments and perception (for the most part) when making observations, doing tests and interpreting results. Nor does one require an absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality.

Scientific theories change and adapt to improvements in understanding; that does not mean that prior understandings are fundamentally flawed, or current understanding is worthless because new discoveries might come along.

For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true.

And yet the theory of gravity can be used to explain the vast majority of observable situations in which gravity plays a part... Science does not claim to determine truth, just to discover more accurate explanations for the things we observe.

Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.

... right. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is serverely lacking.

Secondly, you will have to elaborate on your conclusion that religion does not reflect reality, because right now you are just ranting without backing it up.

Well, to illustrate...

Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.

Lets take one right from the start of the book shall we? "The universe was made in 6 days".

This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?

This is the second (as far as I can remember) time you have accused someone of introducing a strawman argument; I think you might want to look up what it actually means.

The point being made is that I went on to here:

SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.

So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.

Ah, three countries which all followed rather extreme versions of social revolutioary communism, using religious persecution as a weapon to break the back of established power structures?

That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.

... I don't believe that I claimed anything of the sort.

And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?

Questioning and criticising religion and religious claims is not persecution. Nor do I seem to remember scorning anyone for their beliefs unless those beliefs harm themselves or others.

Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality.

I think you mean... reality.

The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.

And yet in the little place we like to call actual reality the pink unicorn is fully false.

Who are you to say that your reality is better than their reality?

Well, as fun as it must be to have your own pink unicorn, I think the requirements and realities of actual reality trump those of make-believe land. If you believed that you were eating food but were in fact actually starving to death eating air would you say that your reality is better than actual reality?

And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?

What problem would we have if any particular powerful group got into power and then started enacting policies based upon some make believe fiction which in no way connects to reality?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?

Atheists in the United States have a legitimate concern over this. We have an extraordinarily powerful religious subset that is not content to simply live according to their own religious principals, but seeks to impose those principals on everyone, willing or unwilling, through legislation. This is most prevalent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of science curricula with religion, most frequently creationism. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to teach their own children that a divine intelligence created the universe, but they are driven to impose it on others.

If that feature of American religion is ever substantially diminished, I can almost garuntee you that the animosity between atheists and theists will decrease in correlation.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?

Atheists in the United States have a legitimate concern over this. We have an extraordinarily powerful religious subset that is not content to simply live according to their own religious principals, but seeks to impose hose principals on everyone, willing or unwilling, through legislation.

I hate it when people seek to impose hose principals.

This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.

Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group.
Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.

Sorry, I'm trying to reach for a Freudian slip joke, but can't think of anything good.

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry, I'm trying to reach for a Freudian slip joke, but can't think of anything good.

(adopts Great White North accent) Don't be a hoser eh!

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.

Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group.
Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.

In terms of power, this constiuency's representatives include sitting US Representatives and Senators, including viable Republican Presidential candidates, threatening to shut down our government over female access to abortion services as recently as yesterday. You must admit, it's not as if this lobby is 'nothing to worry about" for supporters of "choice" or whatever the phrase for access to birth control and abortion is called these days.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

This is most prevealent in terms of repeated attempts to limit or restrict access to female birth control and abortion services, and attempted infiltration of unscientific religious dogma into science w curricula. For a certain segment of the US population, it is not enough simply to avoid birth control and abortion, and to reach there students creationism, but they are driven to impose it on others.

Awhile back I would have said you were full of horsepucky. Now I just disagree on the level of strength of this group.
Now fanatics on the other side do the same thing, but I hate to say it, you have a point.

In terms of power, this constiuency's representatives include sitting US Representatives and Senators, including viable Republican Presidential candidates, threatening to shut down our government over female access to abortion services as recently as yesterday. You must admit, it's not as if this lobby is 'nothing to worry about" for supporters of "choice" or whatever the phrase for access to birth control and abortion is called these days.

As Libertarian who loves the French view of separation of Church and State, I am quite aware of the extent their caterwalling.

Fair enough

@SilverMK2 YOU WERE DOING SO WELL

 zgort wrote:
@SilverMK2 YOU WERE DOING SO WELL

I refer to my previously posted image

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
First of all, science does not help us discover reality.

That is kind of expressly what science does... Science helps explain the universe around us by making observations, undertaking testing and suggesting methods of explaining the results of those observations and tests.

Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable.

One can account for the accuracy of instruments and perception (for the most part) when making observations, doing tests and interpreting results. Nor does one require an absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality.

Scientific theories change and adapt to improvements in understanding; that does not mean that prior understandings are fundamentally flawed, or current understanding is worthless because new discoveries might come along.

So you mean to say you still believe in the miasma theory? The miasma theory was mainstream science and accepted as truth worldwide for centuries, similar to theories like gravity. Yet nowadays it is seen as ridiculous and mostly worthless. Pretending this can't happen to present-day theories is just closing your eyes.
And stating that you don't require absolute precision of observation to be able to determine reality is self-contradictory. Reality is reality because it can not be doubted. Without absolute precision there is room for doubt. You seem to be under the impression that science, like reality is objective. It is not. Science is conducted by humans and therefore inherently subjective. Thus science will never be able to determine an objective reality. In fact, it can be argued that reality does not even exist, but is purely an artificial social construct.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true.

And yet the theory of gravity can be used to explain the vast majority of observable situations in which gravity plays a part... Science does not claim to determine truth, just to discover more accurate explanations for the things we observe.

Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.

... right. Your understanding of the philosophy of science is serverely lacking.

As is your understanding of reality.
As a matter of fact, the philosophy of science is one of the main subjects in my philosophy classes.
I would also like to recommend these books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.

Lets take one right from the start of the book shall we? "The universe was made in 6 days".

I asked for a religious claim. There is nothing religious about that claim, is there? Whether the universe was made in 6 days or not is ultimately unknowable and irrelevant. Whether it is true or false it has no impact on christian teachings.

In any case, it is not demonstrably wrong, because we have never witnessed the creation of the universe. We can therefore not say anything with certainty about it, because it will always rely on a subjective interpretation of the little information we have. And even if we had witnessed it, we would not be able to say anything about it with certainty, because our observation is subjective too. Reality requires objectivity. Objectivity does not exist. Therefore a objective reality doesn't exist either. Reality is inherently subjective. Here, there is even scientific "proof" for it: http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
The fact that the universe was created in six days may very well be wrong, but it is not demonstratable. In fact, it may very well be that the universe was both created in six days and in billions of years, and that it is only a matter of how you measure it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?

This is the second (as far as I can remember) time you have accused someone of introducing a strawman argument; I think you might want to look up what it actually means.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

I don't recall advancing arguments about tooth monsters and tooth paste? Rather than directly refuting my argument, you set up an alternative with tooth monsters which you then refuted using a rhetorical question.

SilverMK2 wrote:The point being made is that I went on to here:

SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.

So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.

Ah, three countries which all followed rather extreme versions of social revolutioary communism, using religious persecution as a weapon to break the back of established power structures?

Communists usually are atheists, yes. Religious people are less likely to have communist views. So what? I fail to see your point here.

SilverMK2 wrote:

That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.

... I don't believe that I claimed anything of the sort.

I know you didn't. It was more of a general statement than aimed at you. But there are plenty of atheists out there that argue that religions are the cause of all wars and that it'd be better if we all were atheist. That is bs.

SilverMK2 wrote:

And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?

Questioning and criticising religion and religious claims is not persecution. Nor do I seem to remember scorning anyone for their beliefs unless those beliefs harm themselves or others.

I could dredge up several of your earlier comments in which you scorned religious people, but I think those comments are nasty, add nothing to a constructive discussion so I prefer to just ignore them and not see them again. I will therefore rest my case.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality.

I think you mean... reality.

No. Unless you can prove that your perception is indeed reality, I will, according to scientific method, have to believe that this is not the case unless you offer proof. In the meantime, I will believe that my perception is the reality, since both theories have equal amount of proof (none) and I am of the opinion that my theory offers the best explanation for my observations.

SilverMK2 wrote:

The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.

And yet in the little place we like to call actual reality the pink unicorn is fully false.

Can you proof that actual reality exists? No? Shouldn't you then by default assume that actual reality does not exist?

SilverMK2 wrote:

And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?

What problem would we have if any particular powerful group got into power and then started enacting policies based upon some make believe fiction which in no way connects to reality?

Oh wait, you mean like politicians already do?
In any case, to see the problems you would have, look at Russia in the 90's. But I fail to see how this is relevant to our little scenario? How would their belief in a pink unicorn affect their decision-making abilities?

Because the Pink Unicorn tells people they have to do X and Y?

Citing experimental results supporting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics without understanding it?

That's funny.

That experiment didn't say that reality is subjective, it just supported the theory that reality for a quantum system is the superposition of all the possible eigenstates of the corresponding wavefunction which, upon observation, will collapse to a single wavefunction which will, from that point on, be the only possible wavefunction that the state could have taken at that exact moment in time.

Which has been the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics for some time but this is just further evidence to support it.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Because the Pink Unicorn tells people they have to do X and Y?

No the Pink Unicorn says of course you can have another Harvey Wallbanger. The purple faery tells people they have to do X and Y.

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Because the Pink Unicorn tells people they have to do X and Y?

No the Pink Unicorn says of course you can have another Harvey Wallbanger. The purple faery tells people they have to do X and Y.

Which is why I just stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster; may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

The green fairy says have another drink too. I think you are on to something here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The green fairy says have another drink too. I think you are on to something here.

In my world, the bowls of kappa's heads are filled with shochu.

While I do prefer to argue the points raised in the discussion rather than the person making them I feel some combination of your age and language barriers are creating too much of a hinderace to debate Iron Captain.

While I appreciate your input and willingness to step into the ring I currently don't have the inclination to wade through your post again.

Suffice to say that there is a distinct difference between philisophical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty. It is all very well saying that reality is subjective because human experience is incomplete, but at some point in the day you need to accept that if gak is going to get done you have to stop with the existential angst and accept the best your "limited" certainty can offer.

Science has done pretty well so far in (generally) making the world a better place. Well... unless we are all imagining it I guess

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.

So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous...

I'm glad that you agree that flying pigs are ridiculous, but why? Is it because there is no evidence for such a creature? That is a not a strawman. A strawman is misrepresentation. Flying pigs, and the popular "flying spaghetti monster" are not misrepresentations, they are wholly accurate representations of the kind of fantastic claims you are trying to make, based on nothing but hearsay. The flying spaghetti monster also "cannot be disproved", does that make him real? The flying spaghetti also has many miracles attributed to him, is that "evidence" that he exists? There is also a Pastafarian creation story,do you think it really happened?

If you aren't able to see how your own imaginary thing is exactly the same, and just as ridiculous, as other people's imaginary thing, then you wouldn't be the first. Most religious people are too close to their religion to be able to be objective about it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.

And there is quite a lot of evidence to support that the Bible stories are historical.

Except there isn't.

There is no evidence that the world was created in 6 days,
there is no evidence that humans all descended from two people,
there is no evidence that the world is six thousand years old, or that it is in the centre of the universe,
there is no evidence of a worldwide flood causing a mass extinction ~3000 years ago.
there is no evidence that all animals alive today are descended from two animals on the ark,
there is no evidence that the Jews were held captive in Egypt,
there is no evidence of a mass exodus,
there is no evidence of Moses' people roaming the desert for 40 years,
there is no evidence of Israelites overthrowing the Canaanites,
there is no evidence of a sprawling Davidic empire,
there is no evidence of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

In fact, all the evidence we have, and everything we know, completely contradicts these claims. For example: genetic evidence indicates that the smallest bottleneck in our ancestral population was ~10,000. There never was any Adam and Eve, from whom we are all descend. This completely undermines the idea of "original sin", which is the basis for practically the whole thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.

Which is called hypocrisy, because you too have absolutely no evidence to support your belief. And then you use this belief to justify your hatred for that person.

You're wrong on both counts. All of the evidence supports my position. And I don't "hate" anyone. The person I quoted was claiming that he knew God's opinion, and God's opinion was that homosexuals are sinners. Pointing out that the person doesn't know gods opinion, and that god likely doesn't even exist is not "hateful", it's just a statement of fact.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.

So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?

I'm pretty sure that there is no reality at this point...

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Because the Pink Unicorn tells people they have to do X and Y?

No the Pink Unicorn says of course you can have another Harvey Wallbanger. The purple faery tells people they have to do X and Y.

Which is why I just stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster; may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

If I could I would eat your god daily!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The green fairy says have another drink too. I think you are on to something here.

Exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Because the Pink Unicorn tells people they have to do X and Y?

No the Pink Unicorn says of course you can have another Harvey Wallbanger. The purple faery tells people they have to do X and Y.

My bad, I get them mixed up every now and then!

Also, IronCaptain, there is something to be said about scientific theories being false. I mentionned it already, but it is worth repeating. Even if relativity is one day proven wrong, it would stiln have alnowed, and would still allow to make GPS. If Christianity was proven false, it would be utterly useless. Actually the "best representation of reality" nature of science is what is making it useful, while religion's claim to an unquestionable reality is just hubris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, please let this sink in: disproven science is better at allowing us to predict useful stuff than never disproven religion will ever be!

 Smacks wrote:

there is no evidence that the Jews were held captive in Egypt,
there is no evidence of a mass exodus,

Actually, there is evidence that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt. Whether they were captive or enslaved is another matter.

This is also evidence of a "mass exodus" of people. Whether this migration was under duress (ie, the Exodus story where Pharoah gathers up all the war-boyz in their Trukks (chariots) and chases a bunch of people to a body of water that miraculously parts for one group, and collapses in on the second) is a whole other can of worms.


Beyond that, I agree with everything else you've said, regarding science. What some, like IC are seeming to fail to understand is that, if I drop a bowling ball rated at 16 pounds, from a laser leveled height of 2m, while standing in Miami, Florida, and someone else takes a bowling ball rated at 16 pounds, and drops it from a laser leveled height of 2m while standing in Vienna, Austria; we collectively know, through our current understanding of gravity and Newton's Laws, that each of the bowling balls should hit the ground at basically the same elapsed time.

That's the thing with science, if it's a working theory, then it is provable and repeatable by many people.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I mean, please let this sink in: disproven science is better at allowing us to predict useful stuff than never disproven religion will ever be!

And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'. That is like saying my flat tired bicycle is better at driving on highways than a sandwich will ever be.

 CptJake wrote:

And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.

Prophecy, dude, prophecy.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.

Prophecy, dude, prophecy.

Explain. Which major religion claims to or is even used to 'predict useful stuff'?

I'm not sure about the major Eastern faiths, but all three major Abrahamic faith are heavy into the prophecy business.

Christianity and Islam prohpecize about what happens to human beings after death, and how the world will end. You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.

And the Old Testament is so replete with prophecies, vague and specific, you can basically open a random page and find a prophet predicting something.