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.
2014/12/03 15:41:00
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Why is that a problem? Why are religions somehow exempt from criticism?
The major mono-theistic religions are extremely insulting to any modern human.
Criticism is constructive, Not insulting.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".
Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?
I was answering the whole thing.
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer. The answer is I don't know. Sometimes we have to accept that we as humans will never unlock all the mysteries of the universe and the only acceptable answer is I do not know. Science can't answer it because we have no idea what to look for, even if we did, where would we start looking for God? Are we even sure God wants to be found, or are we not sure god is the universe and we are its body. We have no idea. Maybe we are all connected like many believe we are.
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves. Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Often times the atheists I have met have been selfish, ignorant and often only listen to their own beliefs/ideology, yet they hold their ideology so high that it reminds me of the religious folks I hate at my church. They are just replacing god with human thinkers. I find that incredibly selfish, and self serving. They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
If we have no idea X exists then why are we so centered on the idea of the singularity. Why do we believe it might happen?
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 15:41:23
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
It isn't just about opinions. There is a logical (mathematical) contradiction that you must accept first in order to invoke god. I can make this into two syllogisms to show you.
Premise A: The universe is complex. Premise B: Complex things need a creator. Conclusion: The universe needs a creator.
A syllogism, such as this, is at the heart of logical reasoning. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So moving on:
Premise B: Complex things need a creator. Premise C: God is complex. Conclusion: God needs a creator.
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it: 1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop-gap that doesn't explain anything). 2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him). 3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being). 4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason. Ergo: you are unreasonable.)
So which one are you?
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
Not all opinions are equal. The goal posts appear to have been moved not only outside of the testable universe, but outside the realms of reason itself.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 15:54:43
2014/12/03 15:52:45
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
It isn't just about opinions. There is logical (mathematical) contradiction that you must accept first in order to invoke god. I can make this into two syllogisms to show you.
Premise A: The universe is complex.
Premise B: Complex things need a creator.
Conclusion: The universe needs a creator.
A syllogism, such as this, is at the heart of logical reasoning. If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So moving on:
Premise B: Complex things need a creator.
Premise C: God is complex.
Conclusion: God needs a creator.
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it:
1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop gap that doesn't explain anything).
2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him).
3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being).
4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason.)
So which one are you?
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us. We are human beings we are thinking three dimensionally. We are thinking god is a man. A human being given powers. That is extremely self centered. God is not a man, or a woman, or human. God is whatever the hell it wants to be. God is the universe god is the stars. God is us, God is everything. God doesn't care.
You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Saying we are on this path and only these questions are right sound exactly like Predetermination.
Not all opinions are equal. The goal post appear to have been moved not only outside of the testable universe, but outside the realms of reason itself.
Sometimes things that do exist are well outside the realms of reason. Insanity is the only true sanity.
If anyone knows who I am paraphrasing props to you.
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason. Many things have been found from those who are insane.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 16:14:58
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
I think we would be quite happy for you to attempt to logically refute the non-existence of god based upon the scientific evidence.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Except unlike god, observation of the universe and reality has shown such things to be possible, or indeed have been observed (except perhaps things being faster than light - though there is certainly a lot of possibility of there being things which are faster than light). So really everything you believe in, as written there, has plenty of evidence to support your belief in it... except god.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
You can't really disprove something that doesn't exist. You just find more and more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
God changes all the time
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
Science would be very happy for people to look for and find evidence of gods existence. The point is that to date that evidence doesn't exist...
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
Faith in scientific method and the results obtained from it is a very different beast than religious faith.
Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Taking a stance is not unreasonable and illogical. Is water wet? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is and none to suggest it is not, therefore it is reasonable and logical to take a stance on water being wet, despite not being able to know for certain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 16:15:15
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
I think we would be quite happy for you to attempt to logically refute the non-existence of god based upon the scientific evidence.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Except unlike god, observation of the universe and reality has shown such things to be possible, or indeed have been observed (except perhaps things being faster than light - though there is certainly a lot of possibility of there being things which are faster than light). So really everything you believe in, as written there, has plenty of evidence to support your belief in it... except god.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
You can't really disprove something that doesn't exist. You just find more and more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
God changes all the time
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
Science would be very happy for people to look for and find evidence of gods existence. The point is that to date that evidence doesn't exist...
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
Faith in scientific method and the results obtained from it is a very different beast than religious faith.
Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Taking a stance is not unreasonable and illogical. Is water wet? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is and none to suggest it is not, therefore it is reasonable and logical to take a stance on water being wet, despite not being able to know for certain.
I can't really disagree. Some points I do agree with.
Alright let me respond to this bit.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
Yes there is idolizing of certain people, like great thinkers, founding fathers and people in general.
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
Humans are inherently sinful, but that doesn't mean they don't have the capacity to do good. Otherwise god wouldn't waste time on us.
Humans have ability to do both good and bad. But doing evil is easier than doing good. We are taught that being a good person is hard, and you have to make sacrifices and that good doesn't always win. (That is for humans).
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
WE don't have any evidence to support or to negate that a divine being exists. This is just going to become a circular argument though. One saying yes it does, and the other saying it does not.
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Yes, true, but we do not have as many senses as many animals do. We do not use them as much as the five major senses.
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
Thats where I actually disagree. I mean people talk and criticize my religion all the time, yet I listen to them. Yet it is not in my power to change that. They can criticize but often the religious types just ignore them. Not because they are being abrasive but because what could they do? They can't restructure the church. They are just a church goer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
well the thing is we still have no idea. The nature of science is not to prove whether something exists it is to make change the human condition and trying to better humanity. It is not going to the replacement of religion. Religion has its place in society.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Openly saying that All Priests are child molesters in the middle of a church service would probably get you arrested, so no. You aren't protected by the first amendment. You can disagree with it, but mocking it is childish.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
The Jewish-Christian-Mulism God has been in existence before the greeks O.o
Infact the only religion not to change texts has been the Bible, Korah and the Korran. There might be different word translations but the messages are all the same, just said differently.
The Mormon Bible changes ever decade.
No offense to the Mormons but it does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 16:28:24
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 16:39:57
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it:
1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop-gap that doesn't explain anything).
2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him).
3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being).
4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason. Ergo: you are unreasonable.)
So which one are you?
Option 6: God, being almighty, created itself through time.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/12/03 16:45:53
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
Please, do tell how a lack of beliefs in god(s) is insulting to modern humans.
He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
Go an. Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.
He mentions a mountain and gods (plural) living there ....and you think he is talking specifically about Christianity? Greek and Roman mythology (what all religions eventually become, it seems) didn't enter your mind once?
Are you kidding me!?!
He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
And he didn't! He mocked the way it was being presented (the logic) and the way it was being justified (the goal-post moving)
You do realize that the beliefs, the people holding them and the justifications used to hold said belief are three different things, right?
We can talk about those as separate things
First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".
Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?
I was answering the whole thing.
That is of course no help at all, and I am simply amazed that you cannot see this.
its Called Faith.
"Faith" is the excuse people trot out when you have no evidence and no good reasons to believe a proposition
If those people had evidence, they wouldn't need to resurt to faith.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Except of course that God absolutely changes. He changes his nature (mono to trinity), he changes his mind (commandments and guidelines) and he changes the way we have to worship (sacrifice, deeds and works).
No, science does not change. The conclusions drawn by science does. And those conclusions change in the light of new observations or new evidence, not on a hunch, feeling or desire..
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists.
Why not?
So stop looking for the answer. The answer is I don't know. Sometimes we have to accept that we as humans will never unlock all the mysteries of the universe and the only acceptable answer is I do not know. Science can't answer it because we have no idea what to look for, even if we did, where would we start looking for God? Are we even sure God wants to be found, or are we not sure god is the universe and we are its body. We have no idea. Maybe we are all connected like many believe we are.
Thank 'insert-deity-of-choice-here*, that most people don't think in the way you just described. We would still be living in caves while being afraid of thunder.
"I don't know (yet, but I am looking into it)" is the correct answer.
"We can never know (so we should completely stop looking for an answer)" is a horrible attitude.
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses.
I assume you meant "all-knowing" there, not "unknowing".
No, we don't use relatives. You should really look into how science uses terms like "proof" and "proven". Science do not deal in absolutes, as that would discourage looking further.
Again, are you kidding me?!? Humans have more than 5 senses. Examples included balance, temperature and proprioception (the sense that allows you to know where your arm or leg is without looking).
You looked up animal senses (and linked to it), but couldn't be bothered to do the same for human senses?
Sometimes we just have to believe in it.
No, we really don't.
Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
No, it isn't.
We have no faith in the instruments.
That is why we check and re-check them. That is why we constantly calibrate them.
We have no faith in ourselves.
That is why we go through peer-review and let others check our work.
You have no idea how science works, do you?
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
No, it isn't. That is what the enlightenment is all about, and we don't need bronze-age mythology or a jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully to do it.
It would actually be rather easier without.
Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Here are two statements,
A. I believe that god(s) do not exist.
B. I believe that at least one god exists
Which one do you think that atheists agree with? Warning. this is a trick question.
Before you answer I'd like you to think of the difference between "I do not believe god(s) exists" and "I believe that god(s) do not exist".
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Insanity.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/03 16:54:21
2014/12/03 16:55:13
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
There are more options not just 4.
Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
I find it unreasonable as to why it couldn't be true. It is based on faith. I have no idea if God is real. But do I care? Yes. Because it is God.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Maybe because God isn't human, that god is beyond our logic and understanding. There are some creatures that we will meet one day that will transcend our understanding. That of which we will never truly understand.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
Well to be honest insane people have discovered some pretty interesting things that a sane person haven't. Sometimes I envy people who are insane. Because all the barriers are down, and they can see truth.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
But that would be saying that he could exist, he maybe outside our reality but he could still be in a different reality controlling ever factoid of life, creating as he wills it.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
Can I just say it is illogical to demand that your logic is logical.
I've been warned by many of my Fellow Philisophers anyone saying they have the truth or logic above all else, are they themselves untruthful and untrustworthy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 16:58:20
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 16:56:06
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Insanity.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
Have an exalt for teaching logic.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Saying all priests are doing bad things with children in the middle of a service would not be mocking religion. It may be considered (depending on where in the world you are) as something like causing a public disturbance. Same as if you stood up at a football match and shouted that all football players are rapists.
The idolisation of people is not unique to those who do not believe in god. Very few people take the idolisation of celebrities to the extent of some religious observances however
You say there is no evidence to support or disprove a divine being - as you say it is a circular discussionas you want to cling to there being a god. However, there is an equal amount of evidence for there being or not being a flying unicorn who farted the universe into being and guides evolution by waving its horn...
Science os all about proving things. A side effect of science os (generally) the betterment of mankind. Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Regards the mountain top gods - it is a metaphor for the changes seen in religion over time. Pf course belief systems linger on far past the time discoveries are made, partly because not all places discover the same rhings at the same time (common in ye olde times) and partly due to momentum.
The invention of the abrahamic god is useful for the jews of the time who had no fixed abode. A portable god was very handy and as it was "everywhere" it has helped it survive longer than others which were easy to disprove. The killing and conversion of anyone qho thought differently also helped
And yes, god of rhe abrahamic faith has changed over time... just look at the fact there are three very distinct sects who have all been happily killing each other for centuries. Within christianity there have been many revisions of the core texts and the very nature of god.
Even islam, which does actually claim an utterly unchanged religious text there are several versions of the koran and several sects all happily killing each other when they can't kill anyone else
Asherian Command wrote: Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
Not when we're talking about mathematical true or false situations. Either the premises are false or the conclusions are true. There is no way around this.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
It is reason. I'm sorry if it is demoralizing. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
Since I'm nice I'll give you an out.
Option 2, allows god to logically exist. You just have to be willing to accept that he is awkwardly superfluous. Which is how we got into this "top down" discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 17:06:52
2014/12/03 17:12:16
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Asherian Command wrote: Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
Not when we're talking about mathematical true or false situations. Either the premises are false or the conclusions are true. There is no way around this.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
It is reason. I'm sorry if it is demoralizing. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
Since I'm nice I'll give you an out.
Option 2, allows god to logically exist. You just have to be willing to accept that he is awkwardly superfluous. Which is how we got into this "top down" discussion.
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
On my phone so not going to bother with quotes:
Saying all priests are doing bad things with children in the middle of a service would not be mocking religion. It may be considered (depending on where in the world you are) as something like causing a public disturbance. Same as if you stood up at a football match and shouted that all football players are rapists.
The idolisation of people is not unique to those who do not believe in god. Very few people take the idolisation of celebrities to the extent of some religious observances however
You say there is no evidence to support or disprove a divine being - as you say it is a circular discussionas you want to cling to there being a god. However, there is an equal amount of evidence for there being or not being a flying unicorn who farted the universe into being and guides evolution by waving its horn...
Science is all about proving things. A side effect of science is (generally) the betterment of mankind. Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Regards the mountain top gods - it is a metaphor for the changes seen in religion over time. Pf course belief systems linger on far past the time discoveries are made, partly because not all places discover the same rhings at the same time (common in ye olde times) and partly due to momentum.
The invention of the abrahamic god is useful for the jews of the time who had no fixed abode. A portable god was very handy and as it was "everywhere" it has helped it survive longer than others which were easy to disprove. The killing and conversion of anyone qho thought differently also helped
And yes, god of rhe abrahamic faith has changed over time... just look at the fact there are three very distinct sects who have all been happily killing each other for centuries. Within christianity there have been many revisions of the core texts and the very nature of god.
Even islam, which does actually claim an utterly unchanged religious text there are several versions of the koran and several sects all happily killing each other when they can't kill anyone else
Interesting, but I won't change my view on god. Because It doesn't make sense for me to do so. I believe in God, but it doesn't mean you have to, people kill each other in the name of god all the time, and it doesn't mean I agree with them, and who says they are fighting in his name and not for personal glory?
Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Its humanities way of trying to understand the universe.
Philosophy is about understanding ourselves and our thinking. And trying to create morality and trying to be moral. And what ought I to do.
Science will try to delve into it, but in the end we will never find all the answers. and I actually take comfort in that. Knowing all of lifes secrets is not something humanity should think as an end goal, but what we accomplish and do should be our priority.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 17:53:16
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Accepting illogical and irrational options in a discussion is absolutely no way to conduct any kind of debate, healthy or otherwise. That is just an argument used by someone that knows that he doesn't have any logical options left to defend his points.
Otherwise the option that the universe itself isn't real but instead just the figment of the imagination of a small cat named Mittens is equally as valid as an option in a "healthy" debate as the notion of the christian god.
2014/12/03 17:55:07
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Asherian Command wrote: Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates.
No it doesn't. It just allows people who are presenting a logically invalid argument, to keep presenting it unhindered. This isn't really about god, it's about the argument from incredulity.
If you believe that the universe 'could' have formed on its own without god, then this doesn't really affect you. Although it does raise the question as to why you are complicating your own explanation of the universe by inserting elaborate and complex assumptions at the beginning that aren't needed to explain anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 17:56:38
2014/12/03 17:55:47
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Accepting illogical and irrational options in a discussion is absolutely no way to conduct any kind of debate, healthy or otherwise. That is just an argument used by someone that knows that he doesn't have any logical options left to defend his points.
Otherwise the option that the universe itself isn't real but instead just the figment of the imagination of a small cat named Mittens is equally as valid as an option in a "healthy" debate as the notion of the christian god.
The only way to make someone happy is to agree to disagree. Just saying no your wrong doesn't help a debate.
Accepting illogicaland irrational opinions is all up to opinion.
Asherian Command wrote: Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates.
No it doesn't. It just allows people who are presenting a logically invalid argument, to keep presenting it unhindered. This isn't really about god, it's about the argument from incredulity.
If you believe that the universe 'could' have formed on its own without god, then this doesn't really affect you. Although it does raise the question as to why you are complicating your own explanation of the universe by inserting elaborate and complex assumptions that aren't needed to explain anything.
The problem is that is the only way to invite the discussion to differing opinions. First rule of debate is to not to prove someone wrong, but to show someone their error.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 17:57:12
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/12/03 18:05:13
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Ah I see we have the monthly antireligions thread. I can't believe I missed out!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 18:46:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/12/03 18:24:00
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
To be honest, some peoples ideas are so outlandish and they cling to them so irrationally that all you can do is belittle or ignore them.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2014/12/03 18:24:02
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Apropos to this discussion, several quotes from Dawkins...
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
With regard to 99+% of *all* gods humanity has ever believed in, we are all in agreement... They do not exist. So why do Christians (and others, to be fair) stop at that last one? There's no more proof for the existance of the Judeo-Christian god than there is for Buddha, Odin, Zeus, Saturn, Quetzelcoatl, Baal, Mazdamundi, or any other deity that's ever existed in the various religions of the world.
“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it.”
When the Greeks didn't understand why earthquakes happened, they said that Posiedon caused them by moving the great ocean underground. But when science has an explanation, not so many people are left worshipping Poseidon. When the ancients didn't know why the sun moved across the sky, a great divine dung beetle pushed it. Or it was carried on a chariot. Or... Now that we have a scientiic explanation, god(s) need not be invoked.
The "god of the gaps" strategy of attributing anything which cannot, yet, be explained is -ultimately- futile. Even without a rigorious scientific method, knowledge builds upon itself reducing the gaps. The scientific method just hastens that. Today's knowledge builds on yesterday's, and tomorrow's will build on today's. Yesterday, it was earthquakes, weather, and speciation. Tomorrow, it will be abiogensis and the origin of the universe. God is left with an asymptotically shrinking realm. Science will never claim to close every single gap (Heisenberg and Godel provided sufficient proof of that), but even now the gaps that remain don't allow for the active, personal, god that's described in the bible. And the box will keep getting smaller...
Valete,
JohnS
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/03 18:32:37
Valete,
JohnS
"You don't believe data - you test data. If I could put my finger on the moment we genuinely <expletive deleted> ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around"
-Jamie Sanderson
2014/12/03 18:32:23
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
I'm not laughing at anyone. I certainly don't think it's funny. And nowhere did opinions enter into my argument; I'm criticing a line of reasoning. (And opinions are not holy. They can be and often are wrong.)
I wasn't talking (just) about the bible. The mountain was a referenct to Olympos. The city in the sky was a reference to Revelations, which gives literal measurements for said city. The rest were (sadly, only somewhat) satirical references to how religion or religious leaders have deflected fact-finders debunking their previous ideas of what and where god can be found by simply changing what they were saying.
Asherian Command wrote: The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. You are saying there is something wrong, when there have been just as many people killed in the name of god as there has been in the name of science.
You're going to have to prove that last one pretty damn convincingly, because that is just flat-out wrong. Also, Criticizing. Harshly, perhaps, but "you're hurting my feelings with your logic" does not make for a good counter-argument. Yet, somehow, if a religious nutjob calls me a blasphemer (for the record, this is a hypothetical argument. I'm not pointing fingers t anyone here.), I'm not allowed to call him out on his ridiculous beliefs in my turn? Preposterous. Finally, constructive criticism only has merit if the idea being criticized has some merit or enough decent legs to stand on that removing the imperfections strengthens the structure, as it were. It's my opinion (and yes, I may be wrong) that there are very few meritorious aspects to religion in this day and age, and rather a lot of deleterious ones. Hence I also do not think that there is much point to constructive criticism of religion.
Also as an aside, science is actually based on destructive criticism, so there isn't even an inconsistency in my conduct here.
In summary, what Steelmage99 already said much shorter than I'm doing.
Asherian Command wrote: All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists.
Not if you keep changing what God is supposed to be every time the previous "definition"is proved wrong. Also, facts change? What part of the word "fact" escapes your comprehension?
Asherian Command wrote: Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves. Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
No, we don't. "Just believe it", is not, has never been, and will never be, a good enough argument. And that is why science is so much more reliable a tool for understanding the universe than religion or myth. Science does not rely on faith or instruments, it relies on falsifiable and testable predictions arrived at through some chain of reasoning. You can check it all yourself. It might require some (or a lot) of effort, time and money, but it is possible.
There's nothing wrong in taking comfort in an idea (well, depends on the idea), but human betterment is unlikely to come from any religious institution. Religion has been responsible for some of the worst excesses of violence and oppression human history. And the tally just keeps growing.
Asherian Command wrote: Yes there is idolizing of certain people, like great thinkers, founding fathers and people in general.
A real scientist would give his right arm to prove the established order wrong, especially great thinkers. And I'm not American, so I have no particular need to revere your founding fathers. Although I do think Freddy Mercury is one the best singers to have ever lived.
Asherian Command wrote: WE don't have any evidence to support or to negate that a divine being exists.
We have plenty of evidence. It's just that, every time one incarnation is proven false, religion changes what they say needs to be disproven. Like you said, it's running in circles.
Asherian Command wrote: The nature of science is not to prove whether something exists it is to make change the human condition and trying to better humanity.
Wrong. The whole point of science is to figure out ways to disprove a theory you have about why something you've observed happens. Increases in technology and comfort it creates are at best a desirable side effect to the real point. To figure out how and why things happen the way they do.
Asherian Command wrote: The Jewish-Christian-Mulism God has been in existence before the greeks O.o
Infact the only religion not to change texts has been the Bible, Korah and the Korran. There might be different word translations but the messages are all the same, just said differently.
Wrong. The Greek civilization can be traced back to at least 3000 BC. The Abrahamic one, if we start with Abraham, goes back no further than 1,800 BC. And that wasn't the point anyhow. The point was that the first polytheistic religions claimed that gods were somewhere just out of reach. Just like the current batch of monotheistic religions have been doing for the past two thousand years, except that "just out of reach" has shifted from "on top of that mountain" to "outside the universe and therefore unknowable".
Um, where did you get the idea that the Bible never changed? I'm pretty sure at least one Testament was added in the past two millennia, and it still reads as a bunch of added together more-or-less historical texts from before then if you stick to just the Old Testament.
Then there's the various translations like the King James version which all subtly alter the previous text for whatever reason. In fact, the Council of Nycaea was called together to put a stop to the many different version of the text floating around in the early Dark Ages and settle once and for all (for a given value of once and for all) which was the true Word of God. I don't know enough about the Torrah or the Koran to comment.
2014/12/03 18:47:57
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Frazzled wrote: Ah I see we have the monthly antireligions thread. I can't beleive I missed out!
Apparently I am one of the few doing all the defending of religion I am usually the opposition in this.
good. you learn your position better when you have to defend the other side.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/12/03 19:50:22
Subject: Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
Bran Dawri wrote: Wrong. The Greek civilization can be traced back to at least 3000 BC. The Abrahamic one, if we start with Abraham, goes back no further than 1,800 BC. And that wasn't the point anyhow. The point was that the first polytheistic religions claimed that gods were somewhere just out of reach. Just like the current batch of monotheistic religions have been doing for the past two thousand years, except that "just out of reach" has shifted from "on top of that mountain" to "outside the universe and therefore unknowable".
Just an aside, but "Abraham" is thought to have been constructed at some time around 500-300 BC either as a "historic" justification for Jews in Judah holding the land that they claimed during the Babylonian captivity or as a means of justifying who would be included within the "Jewish people" and the priesthood/power structure, and inserted backwards in time.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
