|
|
|
People are entitled to what they believe, while it should be from multiple experiences and not just being spoon fed something (fact or fiction) cause I suppose while it is bad, the same can apply to purely scientific museums. While they might believe that we have evidence to support such claims, so do these Creationists.
All in all, the U.S. Constitution allows for freedom of expression, because it is the minority who does need protecting (Evolutionists were a minority once upon a time). Again, wrong and right doesn't matter, they have to right to do this, it's just the morals that come into question.
|
SANTA 
|
On June 15 2010 02:04 ella_guru wrote:SANTA
lol
|
You know that he is simply preaching to the converted, its for creationists to watch and go "mmm yeah down with EVIL-ution"
Same thing goes for kids, if they have been raised by their parents to be creationists, they will accept it, likewise, if they have been raised anything else chances are they will reject it out of hand. Theres no need to worry(sort of).
|
I don't think you're giving kids enough credit, I recall being taught about Christianity and Jesus and all that in school at a very young age and just thinking "wtf is this shit?". Most kids have the sense to realize that this is bullshit and those who don't realize it have probably been brainwashed by their parents/church/school already.
I did get a good laugh from that video though, "I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution, not as many facts" ROFL 
|
My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations. 
|
On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations.
How does that work?
|
just because these guys are dumbasses doesn't mean we can't attribute some of the world's mysteries to faith and a greater power. the problem with these guys is that they choose to ignore scientific evidence, or just make up their own. humans and dinosaurs were proven not to exist together, so there is no reason to continue believing that unless you are stupid. however, evolution does not prove that we were not created my a greater being, we just got here by a way other than random teleportation. so really, science and faith can coexist together.
and i'm not sure too many impressionable kids will be coerced into closing their minds just by a video that they probably wouldn't even find. it would really only affect people who already thought like that. idk
|
Cool! A brainwashing facility! ^^
On a more serious note, most people that would visit it, will have unshackable faith already, so it doesn't really matter. However, I can imagine that a lot of kids that might have made up their minds when they grow up, being irreversibly indoctrinated by this fairy tales collection.
|
Parents will typically be much more of an influence than a random video
|
Germany2896 Posts
On the net they will see different opinions and thus have to learn how to form an opinion for themselves.
I'm more worried about home schooled children who only ever learn the opinion of their parents/a small homogeneous community.
|
Hm...interesting, I had personally thought that museums focused on creationism existed already o_o
|
Why do I get so upset reading that website, ffs humanity...
|
If the children are able to find this sort of thing they will run into plenty of better sources along the way. Hearing perhaps that "evolution is bad" they will be like "huh, I wonder what it is?" and type it into google. First result is wikipedia. A little down is PBS, Berkeley and NewScientist. The arguments presented will be logical and supported, something that even young kids can appreciate.
|
Humans come in many shapes and sizes. Evolution brings forth a wealth of diversity in individuals, of which the least fit for life in its environment will perish before successful reproduction. The most fit individuals will successfully reproduce many offspring. What 'least fit' and 'most fit' means here, has nothing to do whatsoever with a concept of 'understanding evolution', and evolution doesn't care. I wish evolution was more aware of it being neglected and feel animosity towards creationists. (watch out for anthropomorphisms kids, evolution is an observation of a process, not an actual entity)
That said I'd like to add "BOOOOOOO!"
|
On June 15 2010 02:28 J1.au wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations. How does that work?
The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two.
A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Some other useful quotes:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God.
"You take the word of one book...written by middle aged men in middle age tents,but you wont even examine the evidence presented by thousands of scientists in thousands of books...Pathetic.
You assume that I am an atheist because I hate god. NO, I am an atheist because...I have examined the evidence of the universe, of life, of matter presented by science. Then I asked my self, "Which is more plausible and complete?, science or religion. Which is more open to any hypothesis, provided there is evidence..." . I did not become an atheist just by waking up and saying, "I hate god". No, I couldn't care less what the theologians do in their varied places of worship.
No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs."
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
|
On June 15 2010 02:46 MasterOfChaos wrote:
On the net they will see different opinions and thus have to learn how to form an opinion for themselves.
I'm more worried about home schooled children who only ever learn the opinion of their parents/a small homogeneous community.
Christian internet is the next step.
Seriously, this is a bit of a desperate attempt, but I really feel that it will, ironically, just make spiritualism and religion harder to take into serious consideration (where as a matter of personal opinion, I believe only the latter to be damaging, the former can be quite enriching)
|
On June 15 2010 02:01 zrules wrote:
People are entitled to what they believe
every person whose beliefs are not consistent with reality effectively harm other people by making ignorance more widely accepted. so i disagree.
|
I don't think that "knowing" about evolution or that the Earth revolves around the Sun is very useful. I've never applied that knowledge except in debates over the Internet  That's why I think it's hard to convince a theist of common knowledge like that - it's not very practical. On that same point and contrary to the belief of a lot of atheists, I don't think theists are any less smart, in general, than their counterparts.
|
Hey, I grew up in a very strict orthodox home, but I always had the ability to question what I was taught. That other dude is right: give the kids some credit. I'm more worried about kids getting into freaky porn than over some creationist hoo-hah. I always thought that the people that never question what they see or hear aren't indoctrinated, but were just born stupid. Empiricism! Wooo!
|
I'd rather let my kids see stuff about religion and etc than let them see 2girls1cup/lemonparty/obscene gross stuff
|
"This is very cute but so are the smurfs and the smurfs arent science"
HAHAHA
|
I am of the opinion that stupidity is a type of laziness that can largely or wholely be remedied by using one's brain. The ones that ask the most questions often end up with the most understanding.
Ignorance is a manifestation of this laziness.
Anyways, I agree with you. This is a very negative influence upon society. What we need to do is teach our kids to use their brains, and how things function.
|
This would be a nice case to teach your kids critical thinking, and sarcasm:
"Daddy, did the humans live together with dinosaurs?"
"Yes son. In fact, Jesus was riding on a raptor in his time."
|
let me put it this way. porn might lead to the decay of public decency and morals in the eyes of some, but ignorance leads to the decay of freedom, scientific and technological advance, the government or any other institutions that hold authority, the environment, ...
lets look at just ONE and current example: BP.
the company is getting away surprisingly easy for the huge amount of damage they caused.
here is why:
> people were not aware of the neglect of security measures by BP
> people were not aware of the emount of damage (economical, environmental) the effect of such neglect could have
> BP uses an oil dispersant (corexit) so that the amount of oil that people get to see is vastly different from the amount causing damage
> BP hides that they stocked up on corexit prior to the disaster, that corexit is banned from use in the UK (less harmful dispersants exist!) and that a former board member of BP is sitting in the board of corexit supplier nalco
> BP, on national news, lies about the amount of oil that is spilled and denies knowledge and existence of underwater oil plumes (again, people cant be mad about what they dont see)
> republicans: "drill, baby, drill!", "must deregulate!"
all of that is misinformation, withholding information and lies. nearly every problem we have in this world is directly rooted on ignorance. clearly, no amount of (voluntary) porn can live up to that.
people should take it more seriously. somehow they think that ignorance on lower levels is acceptable, but ignorance is ignorance is behaviour and is the same regardless of where it is applied, and the more ignorance you have the more acceptable it is for other people to be ignorant, too. nobody likes to be the only one everyone else disagrees with, right?
|
On June 15 2010 06:53 enzym wrote:
let me put it this way. porn might lead to the decay of public decency and morals in the eyes of some, but ignorance leads to the decay of freedom, scientific and technological advance, the government or any other institutions that hold authority, the environment, ...
lets look at just ONE and current example: BP.
the company is getting away surprisingly easy for the huge amount of damage they caused.
here is why:
> people were not aware of the neglect of security measures by BP
> people were not aware of the emount of damage (economical, environmental) the effect of such neglect could have
> BP uses an oil dispersant (corexit) so that the amount of oil that people get to see is vastly different from the amount causing damage
> BP hides that they stocked up on corexit prior to the disaster, that corexit is banned from use in the UK (less harmful dispersants exist!) and that a former board member of BP is sitting in the board of corexit supplier nalco
> BP, on national news, lies about the amount of oil that is spilled and denies knowledge and existence of underwater oil plumes (again, people cant be mad about what they dont see)
> republicans: "drill, baby, drill!", "must deregulate!"
all of that is misinformation, withholding information and lies. nearly every problem we have in this world is directly rooted on ignorance. clearly, no amount of (voluntary) porn can live up to that.
people should take it more seriously. somehow they think that ignorance on lower levels is acceptable, but ignorance is ignorance is behaviour and is the same regardless of where it is applied, and the more ignorance you have the more acceptable it is for other people to be ignorant, too. nobody likes to be the only one everyone else disagrees with, right?
I don't think the problem is ignorance as it is people who are ignorant of something try to make what should be sound, logical decisions about issues without knowing anything or would try to convince someone to make their decision for them who has more power.
But everyone is ignorant of something, and sometimes it really isn't directly ignorance that's the problem, but that what someone does know is in fact, incorrect. Like, KKK members know things about who they hate, it's just not all of it is right, so they make illogical and irrational decisions based on something that isn't even right that's the problem, and people get hurt in the process. Although, you can argue that even if what they knew was right, would they stop being racist? Maybe not, because they have been habituated to hate somehow.
I think lack of logical thinking is more of an issue.
Although I agree with your example, but people can't help it because they're being lied too.
|
On June 15 2010 04:46 Cloud wrote:I don't think that "knowing" about evolution or that the Earth revolves around the Sun is very useful. I've never applied that knowledge except in debates over the Internet That's why I think it's hard to convince a theist of common knowledge like that - it's not very practical. On that same point and contrary to the belief of a lot of atheists, I don't think theists are any less smart, in general, than their counterparts.
I feel you man. I think as long as we are thinking and _discussing_ ideas , lots of great things can come from it. It's not a matter of trying to convince someone your way is better, but sharing view points to arrive at new ideas on your side of the fence.
Malcolm Muggeridge said something to the effect of "knowledge for knowledge's sake is an empty pursuit"
I like that quote!
|
When people stop questioning, we will forever be stuck in the present. If everyone is satisfied with the God answer, nobody will bother to look for the truth. Satisfied with status quo. Satisfied with answers that dun stand the test of time/science. Science worship knowledge while theist worship the gaps in knowledge. Physicists are looking for the Theory of Everything to answer our questions on how we came about while theists are happy reading from a book which seemingly dropped from the sky. This is the disparity I'm worried about. Children should have a choice. Freedom of religious preaching from parents, schools and other form of authority who have a large influence on them at the point of time. Those indoctrinated from young rarely break free from their chains of ignorance. We need to prevent them from being chained once they were born for not many have enough willpower to break it on their own.
|
On June 15 2010 07:34 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 06:53 enzym wrote:
let me put it this way. porn might lead to the decay of public decency and morals in the eyes of some, but ignorance leads to the decay of freedom, scientific and technological advance, the government or any other institutions that hold authority, the environment, ...
lets look at just ONE and current example: BP.
the company is getting away surprisingly easy for the huge amount of damage they caused.
here is why:
> people were not aware of the neglect of security measures by BP
> people were not aware of the emount of damage (economical, environmental) the effect of such neglect could have
> BP uses an oil dispersant (corexit) so that the amount of oil that people get to see is vastly different from the amount causing damage
> BP hides that they stocked up on corexit prior to the disaster, that corexit is banned from use in the UK (less harmful dispersants exist!) and that a former board member of BP is sitting in the board of corexit supplier nalco
> BP, on national news, lies about the amount of oil that is spilled and denies knowledge and existence of underwater oil plumes (again, people cant be mad about what they dont see)
> republicans: "drill, baby, drill!", "must deregulate!"
all of that is misinformation, withholding information and lies. nearly every problem we have in this world is directly rooted on ignorance. clearly, no amount of (voluntary) porn can live up to that.
people should take it more seriously. somehow they think that ignorance on lower levels is acceptable, but ignorance is ignorance is behaviour and is the same regardless of where it is applied, and the more ignorance you have the more acceptable it is for other people to be ignorant, too. nobody likes to be the only one everyone else disagrees with, right? I don't think the problem is ignorance as it is people who are ignorant of something try to make what should be sound, logical decisions about issues without knowing anything or would try to convince someone to make their decision for them who has more power. But everyone is ignorant of something, and sometimes it really isn't directly ignorance that's the problem, but that what someone does know is in fact, incorrect. Like, KKK members know things about who they hate, it's just not all of it is right, so they make illogical and irrational decisions based on something that isn't even right that's the problem, and people get hurt in the process. Although, you can argue that even if what they knew was right, would they stop being racist? Maybe not, because they have been habituated to hate somehow. I think lack of logical thinking is more of an issue. Although I agree with your example, but people can't help it because they're being lied too.
yes, thats exactly the point. things like that creationist museum for example further dumb people down intentionally instead of educating them, which is what they should do. thats why i agree with the OP, and porn would have to go a long way before it could be considered as harmful as that.
|
On June 15 2010 07:54 enzym wrote:
yes, thats exactly the point. things like that creationist museum for example further dumb people down intentionally instead of educating them, which is what they should do. thats why i agree with the OP, and porn would have to go a long way before it could be considered as harmful as that.
Creationists tend to reject studies dealing in evolution and Big Bang (or anything that they infer says God is impossible), and the actual scientists that do that (let's not argue if they can even be called as such, that's irrelevant) can be a problem if they inhibit other scientists' studies. But I don't see the big problem. If they aren't inhibiting other studies, then I can't justify a need to fix it. Not that I can really justify a need for Creationist study either, even as a theist. As for other people who just learn about the discoveries or studies, they may not have any effect on anything. If a person believes the Big Bang is not true, but spends their whole life operating business networks, that's probably very irrelevant information in the context of their life.
And actually, porn can have a similar effect of "dumbing" people down by creating unrealistic sexual expectations or unrealistic standards for women in the eyes of men, or maybe the other way around too when women watch porn.
|
What if religion never existed?
Would we be farther ahead in technology by now?
|
you guys are too late
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
|
I enjoy much watching all the technology behind the smoke and mirrors of that museum.
Having all that clockwork machinery and using it to take out the curiosity from people is like being part of the wealthy political class in any third world country, a bad ass black joke. Sad, but so much hypocrisy that I can just laugh. Really bitter laugh IMO
edit:ella_guru just owned the thread, shame at posting something after that living lesson. Never stop surprising about how much that song says everything I trully believe in.
|
On June 15 2010 08:11 ella_guru wrote:you guys are too late Show nested quote +
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
too late for what? to save john lenin? imagine is like the best song ever
|
|
|
On June 15 2010 03:55 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 02:28 J1.au wrote:On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations. How does that work? The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two. A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot. Show nested quote +
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Some other useful quotes: Show nested quote +Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God.
"You take the word of one book...written by middle aged men in middle age tents,but you wont even examine the evidence presented by thousands of scientists in thousands of books...Pathetic.
You assume that I am an atheist because I hate god. NO, I am an atheist because...I have examined the evidence of the universe, of life, of matter presented by science. Then I asked my self, "Which is more plausible and complete?, science or religion. Which is more open to any hypothesis, provided there is evidence..." . I did not become an atheist just by waking up and saying, "I hate god". No, I couldn't care less what the theologians do in their varied places of worship.
No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs."
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I would argue that you are simply an atheist. I think the term agnosticism was created as a "soft atheism" for those who didn't wish to offend back when the term atheist was severely taboo (it still is, to a certain extent). Atheists do not "know" that there is no god. That in itself would be an act of faith. If I'm to generalize for a minute, they are rationalists above all else. By its very definition, supernatural phenomenon can be neither proven nor disproven. The only logical stance is to suspend belief in a higher power if no evidence for one exists. Either you believe in a god in the absence of evidence (faith) or you do not. The view that all atheists have some sort of blind devotion to the concept that there could never be a higher power is a straw man set up by fundamentalists to give the movement a dogmatic feel similar to their own religious regime. The nature of science does not rest upon unfounded assumptions and rigid predispositions; it is our best guess as to how the universe functions based on the evidence we have right now and it is subject to change as new evidence arises.
tldr: Atheism = Agnosticism
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
On June 15 2010 04:46 Cloud wrote:
I don't think theists are any less smart, in general, than their counterparts.
Statistically, they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
|
|
|
|
|
On June 15 2010 10:13 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 03:55 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 02:28 J1.au wrote:On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations. How does that work? The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two. A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Some other useful quotes: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God.
"You take the word of one book...written by middle aged men in middle age tents,but you wont even examine the evidence presented by thousands of scientists in thousands of books...Pathetic.
You assume that I am an atheist because I hate god. NO, I am an atheist because...I have examined the evidence of the universe, of life, of matter presented by science. Then I asked my self, "Which is more plausible and complete?, science or religion. Which is more open to any hypothesis, provided there is evidence..." . I did not become an atheist just by waking up and saying, "I hate god". No, I couldn't care less what the theologians do in their varied places of worship.
No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs."
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I would argue that you are simply an atheist. I think the term agnosticism was created as a "soft atheism" for those who didn't wish to offend back when the term atheist was severely taboo (it still is, to a certain extent). Atheists do not "know" that there is no god. That in itself would be an act of faith. If I'm to generalize for a minute, they are rationalists above all else. By its very definition, supernatural phenomenon can be neither proven nor disproven. The only logical stance is to suspend belief in a higher power if no evidence for one exists. Either you believe in a god in the absence of evidence (faith) or you do not. The view that all atheists have some sort of blind devotion to the concept that there could never be a higher power is a straw man set up by fundamentalists to give the movement a dogmatic feel similar to their own religious regime. The nature of science does not rest upon unfounded assumptions and rigid predispositions; it is our best guess as to how the universe functions based on the evidence we have right now and it is subject to change as new evidence arises. tldr: Atheism = Agnosticism You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not. Aren't the simple definitions of each: Atheist - Believes god/gods do not exist. Agnostic - Does not believe in a god/gods, but is unsure if one exists or not.
My point is that most non-believers (identifying as atheist or agnostic) have at least a very slight uncertainty about the presence of a higher power. Of course one could exist if the rules of the game are that this god is a magical being that is everywhere and nowhere and we have no concrete way of perceiving it. I don't think that agnosticism should exist as a terminology because it implies that atheism involves dogmatic belief that a god cannot exist. Atheism is scientific and it certainly does not imply this. I am an atheist and I concede that it is obviously impossible to disprove the existence of a god, but due to the staggering amount of evidence and rational argument I have seen against the literal interpretations of most major religions, I simply judge the probability of any god existing to be under 0.00001%, negligible. I cannot know that a meteor will not fall on my head in the next 10 seconds (which it rightly should, the heretic that I am) but I consider the possibility to be so small that I don't even need to think about it.
On June 15 2010 10:13 krndandaman wrote:
about the graph on the right, why is it that they only surveyed the range from near-retards to people of average intelligence? the person with the highest IQ is 108
Each dot represents a country.
|
On June 15 2010 09:58 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 04:22 enzym wrote:On June 15 2010 02:01 zrules wrote:
People are entitled to what they believe every person whose beliefs are not consistent with reality effectively harm other people by making ignorance more widely accepted. so i disagree. that's actually very ignorant by you. you're essentially saying "my belief is correct, anyone else who is exposed to other beliefs is in danger because they will be forever lost in ignorance.' People believe what they believe for a reason. You think millions of people were brainwashed? LOL
That isn't what he is saying. He is saying that it is harmful to become complacent in your views of the world, to stop questioning things. Which it is.
Yes, people believe things for a reason. And for most people that reason is something other than a conclusion based on questioning. In fact, I would expect most theists believe what they believe for social reasons. Debate a fundamental christian and see how much fun that is.
Show nested quote +No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs." Actually, not all theists go apeshit about homosexuality. As one myself, I take a liberal standpoint which is 'who are we to judge another sinner?' Sure homosexuality is a sin, but what makes it any different from the daily sins one commits every day?
this is wise
There are tons of different opinions out there and a simple video like this won't change any views ROFL
I don't think that's why he posted the video. Did you read his post? He isn't trying to change anyone's religious views as far as I can tell.
|
On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life.
We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't.
|
On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't.
If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
|
On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith.
No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both.
|
|
|
On June 15 2010 10:47 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped. Idk if I heard the voice of god i'd assume i'd realize for sure that it is god. it wouldn't be the voice of god if you were like 'oh gee what is this voice? perhaps im hallucinating' anyways just watched the video and its pretty retarded. dunno why OP is complaining that the video should be off the web, its mainly showing how stupid the museum is, rather than supporting it.
he must mean net as in trap
I was confused as well
|
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
This is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both.
This is an absurd argument. "Ok, so they had this vision because of the chemical balance in their brain resulting from their severe schizophrenia... but god gave them schizophrenia!". You could answer every question with "god did it" at the root. God makes atoms form and behave the ways they do. God controls gravity. Great. I've stated several times that a god obviously cannot be disproven because the very concept is not grounded in the natural world. I have provided a natural explanation. Your comeback is based purely on faith; what you believe or what it "could" be.
I will concede, however, that those experiencing visions are not relying on faith, but rather delusions. The evidence is apparent to them, it is their perception that is flawed.
|
On June 15 2010 11:00 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faithThis is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here.
Material evidence is what it says. I know exactly what I am arguing.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both. This is an absurd argument. "Ok, so they had this vision because of the chemical balance in their brain resulting from their severe schizophrenia... but god gave them schizophrenia!". You could answer every question with "god did it" at the root. God makes atoms form and behave the ways they do. God controls gravity. Great. I've stated several times that a god obviously cannot be disproven because the very concept is not grounded in the natural world. I have provided a natural explanation. Your comeback is based purely on faith; what you believe or what it "could" be.
Up to here we seem to be agreeing. You call it absurd, I am not sure what the basis for that is.
|
Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind.
And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended 
|
On June 15 2010 11:21 eLiE wrote:Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind. And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended
I wouldn't call it bashing
They are just presenting their point of views
They are not ripping on the religion
I don't think that it should bug you that people say "there is no god, no afterlife, etc"
It is their point of view, you should keep an open mind in that regards as well
now if they start bashing religion and flaming or what not, then you can be annoyed by them.
But that is not because they say those things, but because of what they are doing
To be honest, I have been to that creationist museum like during spring break...
Mom was like, I heard about this and lets go see it
I went in and the first thing I see, dinosaurs and people
wat
And they were like trying to explain every phenomenon based upon what God has done in the Bible or something and I was just like
honestly do you expect us to believe all this?
I told mom at the end that it was really uh not very true lol
I am a Christian but that was just a load of hot air
waste of time and money
not to mention ,more importantly, the misleading stuff they were presenting
They did have a petting zoo, got to see a camel in real life xD
|
On June 15 2010 08:45 travis wrote:
to save john lenin?
Wait, was this on purpose? Because I always thought that song was pretty obviously talking about something like communism lol. Every time I say that, though, people are all "oh no he's just talking about a brotherhood of men who are equal" and I don't know how to respond.
|
On June 15 2010 12:02 Redmark wrote:Wait, was this on purpose? Because I always thought that song was pretty obviously talking about something like communism lol. Every time I say that, though, people are all "oh no he's just talking about a brotherhood of men who are equal" and I don't know how to respond.
oops it's john lennon eh
no that was not on purpose rofl
I don't think he is talking about communism, but that is an interesting way to interpret it.
|
On June 15 2010 10:25 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 09:58 krndandaman wrote:On June 15 2010 04:22 enzym wrote:On June 15 2010 02:01 zrules wrote:
People are entitled to what they believe every person whose beliefs are not consistent with reality effectively harm other people by making ignorance more widely accepted. so i disagree. that's actually very ignorant by you. you're essentially saying "my belief is correct, anyone else who is exposed to other beliefs is in danger because they will be forever lost in ignorance.' People believe what they believe for a reason. You think millions of people were brainwashed? LOL That isn't what he is saying. He is saying that it is harmful to become complacent in your views of the world, to stop questioning things. Which it is. Yes, people believe things for a reason. And for most people that reason is something other than a conclusion based on questioning. In fact, I would expect most theists believe what they believe for social reasons. Debate a fundamental christian and see how much fun that is.
Travis, while it is a danger to stop questioning of things, it is their right in the U.S. to do so, they can believe and express what they want. The liberty to have the ability to question what you believe is wrong stems from the ability to actually express what you think is wrong. If people lose the right to cite what is wrong in their minds, then no longer do we have democracy, but a one sided mob rule. However "unfortunate" (as some people might say, you didn't... obvious :/) it is to have the ability to speak whatever the hell you want even if it is just plain wrong is, more or less, a check on our system, to prevent it from being a, more or less, befuddlement of a single outspoken idea. Actually, considering that this was the way some of the founding fathers wanted to make disbelief in "God and Country" possible, it is ironic that now that very right which they needed to speak out against the pretenses of Christianity at the time are now being used by Christians in the modern time against Atheism/belief in Science alone.
|
On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 03:55 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 02:28 J1.au wrote:On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations. How does that work? The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two. A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Some other useful quotes: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God.
"You take the word of one book...written by middle aged men in middle age tents,but you wont even examine the evidence presented by thousands of scientists in thousands of books...Pathetic.
You assume that I am an atheist because I hate god. NO, I am an atheist because...I have examined the evidence of the universe, of life, of matter presented by science. Then I asked my self, "Which is more plausible and complete?, science or religion. Which is more open to any hypothesis, provided there is evidence..." . I did not become an atheist just by waking up and saying, "I hate god". No, I couldn't care less what the theologians do in their varied places of worship.
No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs."
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I would argue that you are simply an atheist. I think the term agnosticism was created as a "soft atheism" for those who didn't wish to offend back when the term atheist was severely taboo (it still is, to a certain extent). Atheists do not "know" that there is no god. That in itself would be an act of faith. If I'm to generalize for a minute, they are rationalists above all else. By its very definition, supernatural phenomenon can be neither proven nor disproven. The only logical stance is to suspend belief in a higher power if no evidence for one exists. Either you believe in a god in the absence of evidence (faith) or you do not. The view that all atheists have some sort of blind devotion to the concept that there could never be a higher power is a straw man set up by fundamentalists to give the movement a dogmatic feel similar to their own religious regime. The nature of science does not rest upon unfounded assumptions and rigid predispositions; it is our best guess as to how the universe functions based on the evidence we have right now and it is subject to change as new evidence arises.
You can believe in a God/Gods, you can be unsure, or you can believe that there are none.
And, even if you are unsure, you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods exist, or you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods do not exist.
Atheist is the belief that there is no God/Gods. Theist is the belief that there is a God/Gods. Agnosticism are those that are unsure. There is such thing as an Agnostic Theist.....
tldr: Atheism = Agnosticism
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Not quite. It's more like a spectrum, with hard-core theists on one end, hard-core atheists on the other, and agnostics right in the middle.
|
On June 15 2010 11:09 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 11:00 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faithThis is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here. Material evidence is what it says. I know exactly what I am arguing.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
"4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational
"b : not governed by or according to reason"
I agree that terms are not perfectly synonymous and faith may be based on some stream of rational thought. My central point was that one either has faith in a higher power of one does not. I do not find much about religion to be rational, but I suppose logic and "evidence" based upon subjective perception could be used in defense of religion. Is this what are trying to argue?
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
Up to here we seem to be agreeing. You call it absurd, I am not sure what the basis for that is.
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it.
On June 15 2010 12:25 Impervious wrote:You can believe in a God/Gods, you can be unsure, or you can believe that there are none. And, even if you are unsure, you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods exist, or you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods do not exist. Atheist is the belief that there is no God/Gods. Theist is the belief that there is a God/Gods. Agnosticism are those that are unsure. There is such thing as an Agnostic Theist.....Not quite. It's more like a spectrum, with hard-core theists on one end, hard-core atheists on the other, and agnostics right in the middle.
You've really only quoted definitions here. I know what the terms mean.
I believe atheist is an appropriate term for anyone who is not a theist. The traditional definition of atheists seems dogmatic and unrealistic to me- I believe the label was created by the Christian majority to make atheism seem as reliant on faith as theism is. I don't think there are very many non-believers who have unshakable, unquestioning faith that no gods exist. Why would they? There is no text training them to perceive differing points of view as heresy and preachers telling them to resist impure thoughts which question the establishment. In the absence of intellectual coercion, things are not black and white and all possibilities must be considered. Neither Atheists or Agnostics have an unshakable belief that Yahweh/Allah/Vishnu/etc is the true path to salvation which basically puts them in the same boat. Maybe self-identified Agnostics have some vague belief that there could be something out there or think they're "spiritual" or want to stay open-minded, but without an upbringing in a specific religion they would have no reason to believe religion x over religion y and so would likely never adopt an organized religion. I think Atheism and Agnosticism are very similar in practice and Agnostics should be considered Atheists. Primarily because:
1. The term Atheism has become a taboo and twisted to mean things that it does not. If it becomes all-encompassing to represent non-religious people as a whole then it will become apparent that Atheists are not hardheaded, hateful, millitant bastards who want to turn your children over to satan, but are moral, non-religious people who are unthreatening and all around you.
2. I will agree that there is a spectrum of sorts among atheists, perhaps that "spirituality" factor, but I think whether one is a theist or not is pretty black and white. Most religions require certian rituals and the assumption of unwavering belief. If you're not really sure if you believe in Jesus, you're not a theist. "Agnostics" have so, so much more in common with "Atheists" than with Theists.
I guess I can't really argue against what you self-identify as. I am basically of the "Agnostics are Atheists without balls" camp. I used to identify as Agnostic, now I would call myself an Atheist. I wouldn't say much has changed aside from my perception of what the terms mean to me.
|
On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it.
Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness.
I do not find much about religion to be rational, but I suppose logic and "evidence" based upon subjective perception could be used in defense of religion. Is this what are trying to argue?
yes
|
On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness.
I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself.
If you are, in fact, correct, it means very little. Discussions of what should or should not "naturally" be without a creator are entirely arbitrary. Why something rather than nothing? Well, why nothing rather than something? We've come a long way in understanding our world, but we are mortal beings(or perhaps you believe our souls persist for eternity, w/e) and we may never be ever to adequately answer these questions, but my lack of an explanation does not give credence to a supernatural one.
|
On June 15 2010 11:21 eLiE wrote:Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind. And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended
Herein lies the problem. Atheist shouldn't be the one proving for non-existence. Theist should be proving for existence. Scientifically, the one who propose the hypothesis should be the one proving it. You may claim that saying "god doesn't exist" is a hypothesis itself but it is based on the "god exist" assumption theist makes. The root of this issue would then be proving of god's existence instead of non-existence.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
altho this has been posted countless times, i feel a need to post it again. It pretty much sums up the root issue of the "God Vs No God" debate.
|
On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself.
really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling?
waves crash, do they have to experience crashing?
If you are, in fact, correct, it means very little. Discussions of what should or should not "naturally" be without a creator are entirely arbitrary. Why something rather than nothing? Well, why nothing rather than something? We've come a long way in understanding our world, but we are mortal beings(or perhaps you believe our souls persist for eternity, w/e) and we may never be ever to adequately answer these questions, but my lack of an explanation does not give credence to a supernatural one.
this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding.
|
Well, I'd say we're at a slight disadvantage considering god is such a tough guy to get a hold of. That's why it's not really a fair argument, the discussion of faith is not a rational one or one possible to prove or disprove, hence the term taking a leap of faith. We're not wrong in doing it, and neither are atheists in staying rationally grounded, but rationality isn't everything, it's a certain point of view. And I'm not saying faith goes blindly without doubt, really, the two go hand in hand.
Personally (studying science towards medicine), I think there are things too amazingly complicated and perfectly formed to believe that they could arise purely out of chance, and that's all the evidence I need to believe in something else.
I actually had a really smart professor who got stuck teaching an elective bio course, and he took it in his own direction and made a pretty smart argument for and against a god using all these theories. I wish i could understand the diagrams I scribbled down.
EDIT:
this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding.
I think this is the whole point. Science is confined to a rational perspective (I remember the prof going on about occam's razor). Because we can't create testable predictions for theories about god or spirituality, the topic is by definition arbitrary and irrational. Faith fills in the gaps that science cannot.
|
On June 15 2010 14:26 eLiE wrote:Well, I'd say we're at a slight disadvantage considering god is such a tough guy to get a hold of. That's why it's not really a fair argument, the discussion of faith is not a rational one or one possible to prove or disprove, hence the term taking a leap of faith. We're not wrong in doing it, and neither are atheists in staying rationally grounded, but rationality isn't everything, it's a certain point of view. And I'm not saying faith goes blindly without doubt, really, the two go hand in hand.
Personally (studying science towards medicine), I think there are things too amazingly complicated and perfectly formed to believe that they could arise purely out of chance, and that's all the evidence I need to believe in something else.I actually had a really smart professor who got stuck teaching an elective bio course, and he took it in his own direction and made a pretty smart argument for and against a god using all these theories. I wish i could understand the diagrams I scribbled down. EDIT: Show nested quote +this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding. I think this is the whole point. Science is confined to a rational perspective (I remember the prof going on about occam's razor). Because we can't create testable predictions for theories about god or spirituality, the topic is by definition arbitrary and irrational. Faith fills in the gaps that science cannot.
My Opinions:
You see a steep, treacherous slope up a mountain and thinks its impossible to scale it and hence gives up without knowing that on the other side of the mountain, there is a long gentle path to the peak.
A building may seem impossible to build as all its components have to be there at the same time for it to be erect but have the onlooker forgotten about the scaffolding that once held it up but was removed after the building was complete?
|
It's hard to have discussions this good anywhere but TL.net.
|
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith. I'm not smart enough to climb up that mountain or build that building, but I'm sure scientists will continue to devote their time to those questions. We'll probably be dead by the time there could be any sort of answer anyways. I'm not even sure if I'm making sense anymore, kind of late, and I have to get up in 5 hours for work (subbing with daytime rate, woo), so time for bed.
|
On June 15 2010 14:57 eLiE wrote:
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith. I'm not smart enough to climb up that mountain or build that building, but I'm sure scientists will continue to devote their time to those questions. We'll probably be dead by the time there could be any sort of answer anyways. I'm not even sure if I'm making sense anymore, kind of late, and I have to get up in 5 hours for work (subbing with daytime rate, woo), so time for bed.
Faith lives in the gaps that science has yet to fill. Lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis were once considered to be acts of god. By extrapolating this trend, I project that science will sooner or later, answer almost everything and religion, almost nothing.
Goodnight.
|
On June 15 2010 14:57 eLiE wrote:
For sure, travis. I don't know about you guys, but I'm having fun with this. To Ixas, until science has evolved (sneaky reference to op) to the point where it can answer this questions that I use faith to answer, I'll be sticking with faith.
scientists have already answered questions you are probably referring to (i guess. the following two are at least the most widely cited ones allegedly speaking in favor of the intent of a creator).
the laws of the universe with its four forces of which a minute change to just one of them would have the entire universe as we know it collaps or disperse with no atoms, planets, life possible is the way it is, the earth and the universe are suited for life, because if it were any different then life wouldnt be there to observe that and ask that question. the very fact that life is here means that our world must allow for its existence.
"dont be surprised that the cat has holes in its fur precicely where it has its eyes."
another thing is with the complexity of life and that fascinating thing that we call dna. what ixas tried to say with that metaphor was that complex things can be broken down into small segments that are not complex at all. dna or "life" didnt just go from a random, abundant cloud of molecules into that form just like that. millions of changes over millions upon millions of years have accumulated into that which we now call life. evolution is a very simple principle. that which can survive and is not wiped out will prevail. chemical reactions happen everywhere. it is no surprise that some of them result in molecules that can repair themselves. its nothing but evolutionary changes accumulated over a long period of time. its not chance at all really. just that the most suited to survive/outlast will do so and if changes occur to it then some of them will put it into a worse position and some of them into a better one.
why would "god" be a satisfactory asnwer to anyone? does he not just push our questions back one step further instead of answering them? where did god come from? nothing is solved with that, and nothing (i know of) requires the existence of a god.
|
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals
|
On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals
How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though?
More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life?
If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why?
|
On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing?
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function.
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
|
On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why?
huh?
~
i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior
you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason
|
On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason
Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least.....
Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them?
|
On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them?
Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing?
sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect.
Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body.
Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature.
And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced"
At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem
I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion
|
On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion
BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more.....
Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up?
Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals?
I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine.
|
On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine.
what i said
regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside
but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes.
What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge?
will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective?
It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community
(My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things)
Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority.
The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group.
example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively?
|
On June 16 2010 00:29 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine. what i said regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes. What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge? will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective? It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community (My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things) Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority. The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group. example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively?
What is the difference between "different tastes" and "offensive tastes"? Is it not arbitrary, based on your belief? Where would we be if people stopped thinking differently than everyone else?
There was a time when it was illegal, and immoral, to believe anything other than that the earth was flat..... It was a very, very bad thing to think otherwise. People were publicly executed for such differences. But where would we be without these people who were "displaced"?
You have a belief that some things are "offensive". Take a step back and try to see how similar it is to a belief that the world is flat.
Being banned was an action taken by at least one moderator, because you broke some arbitrary rule(s). Who is to say that those rules are "right"?
Our society actually needs people to break rules. Why? Because it brings attention to problems with the rules, and it forces us to change the rules as society changes. Basically, it forces us to collectively reassess our stance on those crimes/moral codes whenever someone is deviant. This can allow us to question the punishment, and even the (il)legality of behaviors. Otherwise, we would be stagnant. And that is a very bad thing. This is a pretty basic concept from intro to Criminology.....
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
I have the same view myself.
However I would say consciousness is still very different from material reactions. Material reactions are objectively observable and measurable. Consciousness is not, it is purely subjective and not measurable or observable in any objective fashion.
I've got work to do. I shouldn't be in this thread right now. I'll come back later lol.
|
On June 16 2010 00:52 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 00:29 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 16 2010 00:17 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:55 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:41 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 23:28 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 15 2010 23:10 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 21:30 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:
i'm more worried about girls and boys assuming promiscuous behaviors from young age, and losing morals How do "promiscuous behaviors" and "losing morals" go together though? More precisely, what are "morals" anyways? Is it something that you read in a book, or is it something that a preacher preaches? Or is it an individual's interpretations of the rules of society that they are raised in, affected by every experience in their life? If two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly, is it a bad thing? If so, why? huh? ~ i'm talking about common sense and self-destructing behavior you threw both tough questioning and misinterpretation for no reason Your statement implies that when they assume promiscuous behaviors, they lose morals..... I can see how it can be interpreted differently though..... Now at least..... Still, morals are a very subjective thing. How can somebody "lose" them? Why you implied the "two teenagers want to fuck, and do so responsibly" thing? sex is natural and at the Teen Age, the mind and body of the person start to evolve over this aspect. Sex done with responsability is good, no one gets hurt both in psique and body. Promiscuous behavior can pretty much be identified by common sense, because it is the offensive use of human sexual nature. And morals were not supposed to be subjective, people outside them are just "displaced" At least in my mind, moral is the technical concept of common sense, the regional, religious and cultural aspects that influenced it is a particular problem I believe that the Bold part is what created our discussion BDSM can also be considered "offensive use of human sexual nature", and nobody gets hurt either (well, if somebody does, they consented to it ). Is it wrong? Same with homosexuality..... Threesomes? Polygamy? And much, much more..... Morals are very much subjective. How do you know that others are "displaced" and not you? How is your view right, and others are wrong? How do you know that promiscuity is wrong? How about the other things I brought up? Another example - animal rights. Personally, I like having a bacon-cheeseburger once in a while. I had pork chops last night, I had bacon and eggs this morning and a ham-sandwich at lunch. I like my meat. But I doubt that some vegetarians and vegans feel the same way about it as I do..... Am I right? Are they right? Who has the superior morals? I dunno. But I'm not going to condemn them for having a different view than mine. what i said regional, religious, and cultural aspects aside but please do not misinterpret different tastes with offensive tastes. What if one sexually influences a child negatively, by not waiting for it to mature its thinking and self knowledge? will one still find another point of view to try and say this is subjective? It is no right to not comdemn different tastes, as long as it does not invade and offend the obvious consensus that rule the community (My complain is that nowadays even this consensus is getting corrupted by media and younger ones assimilating "bad" things) Human beings are animals that live in groups, like animals that live in groups the innate knowledge about "morals" what is "good and what is wrong" tend to be known by the majority. The ones that cant figure that out, are displaced and do not belong that group. example: TL, how many (Me, Oakhill, and many others) were banned for acting offensively? What is the difference between "different tastes" and "offensive tastes"? Is it not arbitrary, based on your belief? Where would we be if people stopped thinking differently than everyone else? There was a time when it was illegal, and immoral, to believe anything other than that the earth was flat..... It was a very, very bad thing to think otherwise. People were publicly executed for such differences. But where would we be without these people who were "displaced"? You have a belief that some things are "offensive". Take a step back and try to see how similar it is to a belief that the world is flat. Being banned was an action taken by at least one moderator, because you broke some arbitrary rule(s). Who is to say that those rules are "right"? Our society actually needs people to break rules. Why? Because it brings attention to problems with the rules, and it forces us to change the rules as society changes. Basically, it forces us to collectively reassess our stance on those crimes/moral codes whenever someone is deviant. This can allow us to question the punishment, and even the (il)legality of behaviors. Otherwise, we would be stagnant. And that is a very bad thing. This is a pretty basic concept from intro to Criminology.....
i got your point
but lets think about this for a moment?
is "arbitrary" the same as "random"?
|
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this.
|
On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this.
now here is what i mean
not all rules are arbitrary
cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be,
but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know.
But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
|
On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random.....
Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic.
Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things.
Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
|
On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper
Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random.....
Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic.
Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things.
Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
EDIT - and I agree, things need to get done plain and simple.
|
On June 16 2010 02:30 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random..... Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic. Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things. Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
then thats it we're done for now
we can draw good things even from bad wounds
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing? we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling. so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function. i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
ok, back to this
you say
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
but you also say
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
these statements appear contradictory and fall in line with what I am saying about consciousness being unnecessary for the function of the universe. if we are not actually in control of our thoughts and actions(determinism), then what is the role of consciousness? You seem to answer it yourself by saying
don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe
but that's contradictory to
so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis.
anyways, buddha knew all about the necessity of conscious experience. in fact he eliminated it from his life. that's my goal as well.
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life.
I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird.
Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
I believe in rebirth for a reason. If you slow down and examine things that happen in life I find that there are clearly schemes that are going on, there are patterns to things I experience. The universe works out in certain ways.
You might be interested in reading about the buddhist views of karma and rebirth.
|
I'll look into it, Those monks usually look pretty at peace, so they must have some answers they're not telling us.
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
how was your life established, then, for the first time? you cant have a repeat without a source. did the complete and endless cycle just pop into existence like that, with all of its reruns? i think that doesnt make sense and we dont need it.
|
On June 16 2010 05:34 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me. how was your life established, then, for the first time? you cant have a repeat without a source. did the complete and endless cycle just pop into existence like that, with all of its reruns? i think that doesnt make sense and we dont need it.
the universe having a start actually makes less sense to me logically than it always having been
|
Who says there has to be a start or an end? To take this to an elementary level, look at a circle. I agree with travis, because if there was a start, then what was there before the start, and then what will there be at the end? If there was something before the universe started, is that when time started? If it was, what is a place before that where there is no time? Sounds like a place that is eternal, never starting or ending.
EDIT: Lets keep going. I think this would lead to a paradox, If time has a start and end point, then wouldn't the place before the start and after the finish be eternal?
|
On June 16 2010 05:48 eLiE wrote:
Who says there has to be a start or an end? To take this to an elementary level, look at a circle. I agree with travis, because if there was a start, then what was there before the start, and then what will there be at the end? If there was something before the universe started, is that when time started? If it was, what is a place before that where there is no time? Sounds like a place that is eternal, never starting or ending.
EDIT: Lets keep going. I think this would lead to a paradox, If time has a start and end point, then wouldn't the place before the start and after the finish be eternal? i think an infinite universe is just as hard to grasp by the human mind as the concept of a first cause. but that was not my concern. i was more focused on the repetition of the same life/universe instead of just a cycle.
in other words, im fine with a universe thats expanding and contracting cyclically, but not with the way you want to explain deja-vu, nor with rebirth.
i will admit, though, that this is an emotional thing and not something i can determine with conclusive, clean argumentation. i think its pretty hard to sort out.
|
On June 16 2010 01:06 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. I have the same view myself. However I would say consciousness is still very different from material reactions. Material reactions are objectively observable and measurable. Consciousness is not, it is purely subjective and not measurable or observable in any objective fashion. I've got work to do. I shouldn't be in this thread right now. I'll come back later lol.
that is only true to an extent. we know a non trivial amount about the relationship between thought and the brain. we can't observe a brain being self aware but we can observe a brain thinking and to me being self aware is still just particularely advanced problem solving and analysis software.
On June 16 2010 04:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing? we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling. so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function. i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. ok, back to this you say Show nested quote +
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
but you also say Show nested quote +
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
these statements appear contradictory and fall in line with what I am saying about consciousness being unnecessary for the function of the universe. if we are not actually in control of our thoughts and actions(determinism), then what is the role of consciousness? You seem to answer it yourself by saying
i don't believe those statements are contradictory. we are not in control of our thoughts and actions but our body is still very responsible for how successful we are in life. for instance if your body is immune to lethaldiseaseX then if at some point the universe subjects you to lethaldiseaseX you will not perish where another body might. in the same way a powerful brain with a consciousness may be the key to protecting you from other threats. im not sure if it is clear but none of that procludes determinism. (your body was always going to be immune to lethaldiseaseX at that time due to...)
no more time, work.. meep!
|
im catholic, but i now that genesis wasnt written to be taken 100%truth, its a tale, just like many cultures have their "beggining of the universe" tale or myth, this is the jew tale of the jew culture, written for the jew people
and as someone said, kids would probably look on wikipedia first
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
oh man, i had an experience like that too. I had a dream about being forced to stay in a mental institution, and when i was watching the butterfly effect, i realized it was the exact same building. I felt extremely uneasy after that....
|
Actually this is the way it all happened.
![[image loading]](http://www.venganza.org/fsmdrawing.jpg)
... the dinosaurs are behind the mountains if you wonder.
-------------------------------------------
Morals... oh morals.
Just like other rule systems they will always have exceptions.
Consider situation :
You are a driver on a train, which cannot be stopped or slowed and the rail track is splitting...
1. On one track there is one man, on the other track there are ten men.
Which track do you chose?
2. On one track is mother Teresa, on the other there is a random convict..
3. You have 3rd choice to derail the train, thus to kill yourself...
4. On one track there are 10 good people and 10 serial killers on the other track there is 10 average business men...
...
What do you do?
Do you try to interfere, or don't do anything?
Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in order to save someone else?
How do you count value of group of different people?
Where do your morals say?
|
On June 16 2010 16:56 LastWish wrote:Actually this is the way it all happened. ... the dinosaurs are behind the mountains if you wonder. ------------------------------------------- Morals... oh morals. Just like other rule systems they will always have exceptions. Consider situation : You are a driver on a train, which cannot be stopped or slowed and the rail track is splitting... 1. On one track there is one man, on the other track there are ten men. Which track do you chose? 2. On one track is mother Teresa, on the other there is a random convict.. 3. You have 3rd choice to derail the train, thus to kill yourself... 4. On one track there are 10 good people and 10 serial killers on the other track there is 10 average business men... ... What do you do? Do you try to interfere, or don't do anything? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in order to save someone else? How do you count value of group of different people? Where do your morals say?
http://www.justiceharvard.org/
did you by any chance follow this at all, or did your example come from elsewhere? :o
|
Actually I don't have a specific source, I just happen to have some friends with who I often discuss dilemmatic topics.
Interesting site though, I'll definitely check it out.
|
On June 16 2010 07:41 dan_dark wrote:
im catholic, but i now that genesis wasnt written to be taken 100%truth, its a tale, just like many cultures have their "beggining of the universe" tale or myth, this is the jew tale of the jew culture, written for the jew people
and as someone said, kids would probably look on wikipedia first
Dun u think jews/catholics/christians/muslim somewhat share the same book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
