Summer means no religion or politics?

[Babar]

Yes, some of the things I sense/d in the physical world certainly reinforced my beliefs.

However, those things aren't the totality of the cause of my beliefs. As an example, "I think, therefore I am", doesn't really require any sensory input at all, although I guess as far as our knowledge goes, you'd need a physical brain - but then in that sense, me being a physical being, ANYTHING I say I thought could be called out by someone as "Hey, that's the physical talking!", because realistically, there is no way to find out otherwise. If we had some way to read minds, an interesting (and creepy ) experiment would be to put a newborn baby into total sensory deprivation, and then see what it comes up with.

You could definitely argue that my ideas were due to [blah] chemical that entered my [blah] and created a [blah] response, and it might even be true, but it would be true in the same sense that my deep feelings for someone is nothing more than another set of chemicals, or my perception of beauty in a painting is nothing more than a certain pattern of colours exciting the [blah] of my body to release [blah] which gives a [blah] response- Misj' explained it nicely (although I'm having trouble finding where in these 33 pages) about science explaining only the "how", not the why.

PS: Excuse my blahs...the word is probably "endorphins" and some p-gland or the other, but I'm not learned enough to know, and (since you probably get my point), not bothered enough to find out .

[MrColossal]

Ok, thanks for answering!

[Lionmonkey]

But it seems by your logic you also don't know if you're in a debate...

You're right, I don't know.

re: unicorns. a horse with a carrot on it's head is not a unicorn. If someone makes a claim that a Unicorn is a horse like creature with a horn in it's forehead, a lion's tail, a goat's beard and cloven hooves and that the horn can neutralize poison, also sometimes only virgins can see them. There are claims that you can then refute. If someone presents you with a unicorn of classical definition, you look at it and see that a carrot is glued to it's head you can then state "This is a horse and there is a carrot glued to it's head" You're skipping the whole hypothesis part of your argument that anything can be true.

Well, I could have made a theory that it was a hybrid between a horse and a rhinoceratus or that a shift in quantum particles has made a fascinating change to animal's physical properties, but the carrot theory was the first thing, that I came up with. Anyway, the goal of it was to show how a man's stubbornness can not let one see anything contrary to one's beliefes, instead fetching explanations.

CJ is a black woman from the depths of the sea. Do you think this can be proved wrong, Lionmonkey?

Well, I don't know, there's all kind of folks nowadays.

Yes, they are. Nevertheless we can state it as a fact that peple don't necessarily have five fingers. But your argument was that there's no such thing like a fact because we can't say for sure. But we indeed can say for sure that there are people with more than five fingers..

Okay, let me rephrase it: There can be no facts that are absolute. Like, you can't say that object X is always in the color Y. You can only say that object X can be any color, including Y, Z, and so on. So, you can sum all the facts in one: Everything can be anything with any properties, any time and under any circumstances.

MY point being that comparable behaviour on the atheist side is practically non-existent, since a standard argument of the atheist side is listing several obviously supernatural experiences that would make them convert immediately. Which is consistent with their world-view, btw., because rational behavior includes the ability of accepting the own belief system to be wrong.

Or is it? What if one used logic to prove there's a chance world is not like what it is in the theories of modern science? Would an atheist be able to accept one's personal beliefs may be wrong?

And for me, there's nothing more than what can be conceived using the senses, because even if there were something, I'd have to believe it without evidence. To me, there's no point in doing that.
Our reality is defined by what we can sense, anything beyond that doesn't have any noticeable effect by definition and can (and should) be neglected.

If you can't sense it, what makes you think it can not influence it in any way? How about a fully  paralysed man, who's also blind, deaf and can't smell anything, who suddenly starts burning? What if you send a "You're on fire!" message through advanced technology to his mind and then he would answer: "I can't sense it, so I'm not.". Can you really say that anything beyond your senses is neglectable?

[miguel]

Hi guys, I've been away piled in work for the past weeks, so sorry if I didn't follow this thread for a while.

About sensing God:
     It's a personal experience and one that most non-believers would put in the realms of paranormal events.
     All I can say is that It happened to me more than once and it had nothing to do with Science-Fiction/Horror movies, it was just a subtle and rewarding breeze of awe that made me look around and try to decode it with my knowledge and physical senses. Moments later all that was left was the same world that I live. Only I had much more to think about.

Reading the past pages of this thread I found very connotations with philosophy and I do think that it is the best approach to this subject rather than science. Why? Because you will go around in circles and clearly stop when reaching quantum levels where nobody here (me included) has the proper knowledge to go deeper into it. 

[MrColossal]

But it seems by your logic you also don't know if you're in a debate...

You're right, I don't know.

So then why do you keep posting? Again, I'm serious, I'm not trying to act dickish, I'm really seriously interested in what your desired outcome from posting on a thread that you don't even know if you're really posting or if anyone is reading this or if you're secretly everyone on these forums updating during a psychotic episode or you're really a unicorn in a field and this is how they perceive the world? Would you like us all to come around to your thought process and just stop talking? Or would you like people to post questions so we can just all talk about how we don't know anything for sure "Can someone recommend a game for me to play?" "No, I don't know if I've really played any games or if you're real so I can't make any statements on this matter."

re: unicorns. a horse with a carrot on it's head is not a unicorn. If someone makes a claim that a Unicorn is a horse like creature with a horn in it's forehead, a lion's tail, a goat's beard and cloven hooves and that the horn can neutralize poison, also sometimes only virgins can see them. There are claims that you can then refute. If someone presents you with a unicorn of classical definition, you look at it and see that a carrot is glued to it's head you can then state "This is a horse and there is a carrot glued to it's head" You're skipping the whole hypothesis part of your argument that anything can be true.

Well, I could have made a theory that it was a hybrid between a horse and a rhinoceratus or that a shift in quantum particles has made a fascinating change to animal's physical properties, but the carrot theory was the first thing, that I came up with. Anyway, the goal of it was to show how a man's stubbornness can not let one see anything contrary to one's beliefes, instead fetching explanations.

I think your goal was missed then. How about this, the bible says the earth is the center of the universe, someone comes along and says "I have math that says the earth is in fact not the center of the universe." People don't accept that because it goes against their currently held beliefs. 400 years later the church pardons this man for condemning him to house arrest and subjecting him to the inquisition. Now, I'm not making a statement against religion, I'm just bringing up something that actually happened [trust me..]

"From my data, math, models and observations it would seem that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Of course at any moment the sun can turn into a watch and the earth can eat a sandwich because man, anything can happen amiright?!"

Also, great, you have 2 theories now you're skipping the Testing the Hypothesis part of human behavior. You can make all the theories you want, but then you test them and the ones that prove false you discard. You do this every day of your life and you know you do and I think you're trying to play devil's advocate too hard.

CJ is a black woman from the depths of the sea. Do you think this can be proved wrong, Lionmonkey?

Well, I don't know, there's all kind of folks nowadays.

I'm serious, can you prove me wrong that CJ is not a black woman from the depths of the sea? Do you think it's possible? Is there anything that can be known? Is one of these things that CJ is not a black woman? If the answer is no, if there really is nothing that one can know and say "This is true" then what is the point of even entering this conversation. No matter what people say you can just go "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!! NEENEER!"

[Lionmonkey]

[So then why do you keep posting? Again, I'm serious, I'm not trying to act dickish, I'm really seriously interested in what your desired outcome from posting on a thread that you don't even know if you're really posting or if anyone is reading this or if you're secretly everyone on these forums updating during a psychotic episode or you're really a unicorn in a field and this is how they perceive the world? Would you like us all to come around to your thought process and just stop talking? Or would you like people to post questions so we can just all talk about how we don't know anything for sure "Can someone recommend a game for me to play?" "No, I don't know if I've really played any games or if you're real so I can't make any statements on this matter."

I'm posting to pump up my ego. Back in the early age I have been noted for the ability to prove my point through use of logic. That's why they called me a "sophist". And I do that because I enjoy dominating over people through the use of logic, rhetorics etc. So, I'm a selfish bastard but then again, who can admit that they are participating in a discussion not because of this, without lying?

I think your goal was missed then. How about this, the bible says the earth is the center of the universe, someone comes along and says "I have math that says the earth is in fact not the center of the universe." People don't accept that because it goes against their currently held beliefs. 400 years later the church pardons this man for condemning him to house arrest and subjecting him to the inquisition. Now, I'm not making a statement against religion, I'm just bringing up something that actually happened [trust me..]

It took these 400 years, with almost each new generation shifting their personal beliefs just a bit from their parents'. Some people may switch from one thing to another for comfort, others zealously stay, but their children may not. And even if they do, their children still may not. And so on, until most people start believing in something completely different. And beyond.

"From my data, math, models and observations it would seem that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Of course at any moment the sun can turn into a watch and the earth can eat a sandwich because man, anything can happen amiright?!"

Also, great, you have 2 theories now you're skipping the Testing the Hypothesis part of human behavior. You can make all the theories you want, but then you test them and the ones that prove false you discard. You do this every day of your life and you know you do..

But how do you know the testing was proper if so many things may be false? Unless, you believe, of course.

and I think you're trying to play devil's advocate too hard.

But I haven't even started yet!

I'm serious, can you prove me wrong that CJ is not a black woman from the depths of the sea? Do you think it's possible? Is there anything that can be known? Is one of these things that CJ is not a black woman? If the answer is no, if there really is nothing that one can know and say "This is true" then what is the point of even entering this conversation. No matter what people say you can just go "YOU DON'T KNOW THAT!! NEENEER!"

I can neither prove or disprove that. Now the point of the "neener" idea (again) is to show how similar religion and atheism are, each actually requiring a person to believe in their credibility. I've become genuinely annoyed from people using the "it requires you to believe in something with no proof" argument against religions. It's gotten quite old.

[MrColossal]

Ok, so then your position is: in order to believe in anything you have to have faith therefore you can't know anything for sure, neener neener... I get it, I also feel it's a complete dead end for discussion because there is no where to go from there so, that's that I guess.

I also do not believe you understand probability but whatever. My left hand has 4 fingers and a thumb on it as defined by the English language and verifiable evidence. The idea that in some infinitesimally small chance my hand could spontaneously turn into 8 children does not change that verifiable evidence and the idea that I could be a brain in a jar does not change it either since relative to my experience this is the truth. Currently all points of information point to me having a hand with 4 fingers and a thumb, if there is information that I don't have that will point out differently, please give it to me. If there is information that I don't have that is impossible to know then it doesn't matter to my relative information.

Oh well, thanks for answering my questions though!

[Lionmonkey]

I also do not believe you understand probability but whatever.

I never said I understood anything.

My left hand has 4 fingers and a thumb on it as defined by the English language and verifiable evidence. The idea that in some infinitesimally small chance my hand could spontaneously turn into 8 children does not change that verifiable evidence and the idea that I could be a brain in a jar does not change it either since relative to my experience this is the truth..

But can your experience be trusted?

..all points of information point to me having a hand with 4 fingers and a thumb, if there is information that I don't have that will point out differently, please give it to me. If there is information that I don't have that is impossible to know then it doesn't matter to my relative information.

In that case, following your words, exactly no information matters. 

Oh well, thanks for answering my questions though!

No problem.

[Khris]

Lionmonkey, I'm afraid you fail even basic logic.

Atheism and Religion are not very similar. Religions invented a whole universe full of various gods who did all kinds of supernatural stuff and require you to believe things that can't be proved nor disproved.

Atheists on the other hand put their trust into a methodology that is built to weed out views that can be disproved.
Thus, truth is approximated and scientists can confidently say that well-developed theory X is very close to the actual truth.

The argument that we have to believe what scientists tell us as much as religious people believe in their fairy tales is very flawed because a) it's about the mentioned fundamental difference of the underlying methodology, b) a proper comparison would be "believe a scientist" = "believe a priest", both are human and thus could be lying, and c) in theory, everybody could confirm a scientists findings because experiments that lead to confirmed theories have to be reproducible.

[Nacho]

The argument that we have to believe what scientists tell us as much as religious people believe in their fairy tales is very flawed because a) it's about the mentioned fundamental difference of the underlying methodology, b) a proper comparison would be "believe a scientist" = "believe a priest", both are human and thus could be lying, and c) in theory, everybody could confirm a scientists findings because experiments that lead to confirmed theories have to be reproducible.

Basically, when science fails to explain something, religion comes. Some centuries ago our sicence was in diapers, so Religion was the answer for almost everything.

Now it is just "something I feel and I can't explain!!!"... Undistinguishable from any other weird experience, like astral travels or weird visions. Of course, all the religious experiences, like the atral travels, the psicophonies of the ufo sightings, can be explained quite well; But some people just preffer to go on believing in the nice fairy tale.

It's okay... It should be good if that fairy tale was not told to young kids by their parents, at schools, or goes on working as a sink where other paranormal bullshit slips trough, but it's okay...

[Matti]

Ah, Nacho, I hoped this thread would end with exactly 666 posts, hehe! Don't wanna keep you from posting though.

[Dualnames]

like I bloody said some bloody posts back, but if a bloody one of you woul bloody notice it, you would have bloody stopped this stupid (and bloody) topic, arguing without expecting to lower or accept each others views and opinions!

Now on topic, yes, religion was vastly used in a wrong way (explaining things that seemed bizarre), and science was too. I don;t recall Nacho saying that science  is bad as religion is for the same reason. You say religion is a shiity thing because it was used to take the place of science and it is agreed that it was misused. Wasn't science misused? Wasn't science the cause for more deaths than religion? Did religion cause the WWII? Nope. Science created the weapon, religion often armed the guy.

To sum up, you and everyone with the same beliefs need to think them over, you can't just have an opinion and Strongly believe on it, without having thought of the simplest thoughts. With the knowledge that nobody will even bother, I therefore will point my thoughts on religion.

I believe in God, but I believe based on my heart, not based on my brain and having proved with mathematical equations His existence. I believe for myself. None other. When your mother says she loves you and that love is real, do you ask proof of it?

[Khris]

You know, if you want us to stop posting here (a request I'll obviously ignore while wondering why you'd give a crap) only to take part in the ongoing "discussion" in the next paragraph, at least come up with some new arguments, not ones that have successfully been refuted several pages before.

Scientific discoveries and religious power were both misused by bad people, yes. Did science cause more deaths than religion? Definitely not, unless you count everything except killing someone with bare hands as misuse of science.

On the upside, science has improved our understanding of the world and our lives greatly, while religion merely claims the monopoly of (moral) achievements any decent society can have without it. (In case you're wondering, the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.)

[Dualnames]

I agree apart from the death part..not even close. On the upside, you consider the fact that religion is a not a part of your life and you feel great without it to be your point of view. But people can live even without science (take the Amish peeps). It's all about understanding that both things are important, and for really different reasons.

I still don't know why I bother! It sort of reminds me the dilemma Ford had about saving Arthur in the first place.

Also for the love of anything, you want me to go through the whole pages, so I can get depressed?

[Khris]

You seem to think that science is responsible for a nuclear bomb drop in the same way a religion is responsible for a crusade. It is, however, easy to see that this is not the case.
Both scenarios involve opposing factions, it's just that the first one is based on territorial, political and economical differences while the latter is based on religious differences.

It's true that neither would have taken place without science or religion respectively, but it's also true that neither one would have taken place without language. But is language responsible for conflicts?

And you don't see armies butcher each other over whether there's a Higgs boson or not. Or atheist suicide bombers.

Also, contrary to your belief, religion is not important. It isn't for me at least, and I can live without it just fine. An Amish who needs complicated surgery because of a brain tumor that isn't even discovered because he doesn't get a CT is basically fucked.

[MrColossal]

My left hand has 4 fingers and a thumb on it as defined by the English language and verifiable evidence. The idea that in some infinitesimally small chance my hand could spontaneously turn into 8 children does not change that verifiable evidence and the idea that I could be a brain in a jar does not change it either since relative to my experience this is the truth..

But can your experience be trusted?

I was going to stop posting but HOLY CROW! Is that all you have to say? I can't see how you read what I wrote and then that's all you have to say.

Relative to my information this is the reality that I accept. I can ask myself "Can my information be trusted" and then test it and if it tests correctly then the information is trusted, if there is secretly an angel pushing everything I drop to the ground to test gravity and there is no way for me to know this then I conclude that gravity is causing objects to fall. IF THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR ME TO KNOW SOMETHING IT DOESN'T AFFECT MY REALITY. So if I can't verify an alternate reality to the one that is currently showing me I accept that current reality. You do this every day, you know you do this. You couldn't function if you didn't do this. Please, please, please, explain to me exactly the steps I should do when I drop a ball and it falls to the ground. What are the thought processes I should run through and what should my concluding thought be?

[Matti]

On the upside, you consider the fact that religion is a not a part of your life and you feel great without it to be your point of view.

You seem to think that science is responsible for a nuclear bomb drop in the same way a religion is responsible for a crusade. It is, however, easy to see that this is not the case.

Sorry guys, can we please agree on one point:

- Science just as belief is INNATE!

The main difference is:

- religion is based on things that couldn't be explained in their time and age... while

- science is lookin around, trying to find out what the causes for all the occurrences are...


And I really can't believe what has been said about science in this thread. Science is when a caveman takes a stick and puts something sharp on its end to have a tool to take down a mammoth as well as programming a chip to create something like Skynet.

Science is people. People are science. Please don't try to seperate science from humans like it's some sort of extraordinary subject some crazy fools are learning. In every human there's a scientist.

[Dualnames]

Without parts of science we would be nothing, but I could live without certain parts of science. Religion also works in some sort of moral code. As for atheist suicide peepes, Hitler didn't start the war for religion purposes, did he?

[Akatosh]

Yes he did. Ever took a look at his personal philosophies? He actually thought he was "acting upon the will of the creator". There's a reason the SS had belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns" (God with us). His beliefs were a crazy mish-mash of Germanic paganism, Young Earth Creationism, Anti-Semitism, (very, very distorted) Christianity aaand Nationalism, none of which have anything to do with science and all of which originate in philosophies much older than the scientific method. Evolutionish rationalisation was occasionally mixed into the propaganda, but it was hardly central to his philosophies. Heck, the Nazi party even had some Evolution textbooks banned, because they suggested that all of humanity was equal due to common descent.

Also, Godwin's Law. The debate is over, guys. The believers automatically lost by bringing in the Nazis. Sorry.

[SSH]

Of course Stalin was a bigger monster in some ways than Hitler and he was definately an athiest....