|
On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god.
I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do.
And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
|
On July 31 2011 14:55 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why... So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems. The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification. Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus. (B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations. I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now. Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence(You can check the primary sources by yourself, I trust). The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this.
I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness.
On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge significant of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god. And since IQ is a genetic relation, people with lower IQs will be more likely to believe, and to give birth to children, and then teach their children of similarly low IQ the same stuff about god.
The graph therefor does explain some sociological things, and gives us an indication as to how religions can grow, but it does NOT imply that people who believe in god are stupid for doing so.
Interesting Factoid: Bonobos and other research primates that have an IQ which is around 80 are significantly better at problem solving than the average human, with their preconceived notions and internalized thoughtless ideas that they learned osmotic-ally from growing up in society, to particular parents, with particular ideals, and particular education systems, and particular social groups, etc etc. I believe one of those videos (where the sunbather is naked and you can react with disgust as Parent or shame as Child) strikes on the same point of internalized beliefs that stem not from reason but from past culture.
|
On August 01 2011 15:21 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 14:55 arbitrageur wrote:On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why... So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems. The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification. Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus. (B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations. I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now. Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence(You can check the primary sources by yourself, I trust). The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this. I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness. On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge amount of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god.
It's not the leaders who are proven to be the dumb ones
|
On August 01 2011 15:19 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god. I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do. And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Not involved really, but you're off a bit.
Evolution is not a theory. It is a scientific theory. There are very, VERY important key differences.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A quick read there. And I assume we're both adult enough to avoid the "using Wiki as a source" discussion. Everyone knows how to click citations.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2011 01:16 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 19:22 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
If a woman births a male child, she's A-OK. Show nested quote +"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2) But if a woman births a female child, she's considered unclean. Show nested quote +"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5) How is that anything but an attempt to promote a social message that women are somehow inferior? Here's some more versions representing female inferiority: Show nested quote +"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
I could go on. Intellectual honesty here, would be you having the self-awareness and humility to admit that you have cherry-picked the parts of Holy Doctrine that you like, that fit with your morality and that are conducive to your life. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance will be that part of your mind telling you to strength your defenses and attempt to justify each and every passage I quoted one by one in order to ease the conflict in your own mind. Thing is, God didn't change how society views women over the last two millennium. We did. This being tells us we should behave one way, while we've discovered that in order to produce a healthy society and live in our current world in harmony, we have to behave in a completely different one. The Bible teaches some good moral stories, but that's all it is to me. Stories passed down all the way from 2,000 years ago to teach us the mistakes of our forebears. But, turning those stories into deeply held beliefs is a dangerous idea to me, because if you devoutly follow those teachings, you're likely to ignore the lessons we've learned over the last 2,000 years if they happen to conflict and in trying to uphold them, you're doing nothing more than disrupting our evolving society with outdated ideas.
we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread.
I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels.
 Peace out
|
On August 01 2011 15:28 JesusOurSaviour wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 01 2011 01:16 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 19:22 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
@bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man?
Le'ts have a look...
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."
Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
If a woman births a male child, she's A-OK. Show nested quote +"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2) But if a woman births a female child, she's considered unclean. Show nested quote +"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5) How is that anything but an attempt to promote a social message that women are somehow inferior? Here's some more versions representing female inferiority: Show nested quote +"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
I could go on. Intellectual honesty here, would be you having the self-awareness and humility to admit that you have cherry-picked the parts of Holy Doctrine that you like, that fit with your morality and that are conducive to your life. Intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance will be that part of your mind telling you to strength your defenses and attempt to justify each and every passage I quoted one by one in order to ease the conflict in your own mind. Thing is, God didn't change how society views women over the last two millennium. We did. This being tells us we should behave one way, while we've discovered that in order to produce a healthy society and live in our current world in harmony, we have to behave in a completely different one. The Bible teaches some good moral stories, but that's all it is to me. Stories passed down all the way from 2,000 years ago to teach us the mistakes of our forebears. But, turning those stories into deeply held beliefs is a dangerous idea to me, because if you devoutly follow those teachings, you're likely to ignore the lessons we've learned over the last 2,000 years if they happen to conflict and in trying to uphold them, you're doing nothing more than disrupting our evolving society with outdated ideas. we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels. Peace out
ahhh. TA:Youtube game. this is what the video was talking about.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence.
) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind.
EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
|
On August 01 2011 15:19 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 03:17 VIB wrote:
Cyba you and all of you whining that atheism is a belief just like religion, have zero clue of what a proof or what science is.
Objectively absolutely nothing can be 100% proven true or false. So that we can actually solve real problems, we set standards of how much evidence we require to consider something true, even if it's not 100%, which never is. So scientists will consider some true when there's a lot of evidence for it.
Evolution for example, has shit tons of evidence for it. It's still not 100%, but it's so much that scientists consider it true. God on the other hand, has precisely zero evidence for it. So no matter how much you close your eyes and whine in your corner. At the end of the day, scientifically, there's no god. I wasn't really saying that i was just saying that some people make atheism become a religion by acting the same way as religious people do. And when it comes to science you should read up more, evolution is still a THEORY for example, yes it has alot of evidence which makes it a good theory. Same thing for relativity and so on you have evidence, measurements and so on that proove to some extent that your theory is either corect either close to beeing so. A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
Evolution as a scientific theory is as good as fact until you find me a a Precambrian chicken.
PS. Gravity is also 'just' a theory.. lol...
On August 01 2011 15:31 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 10:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 01 2011 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
People should keep their faith and lack of faith to themselves, no matter if they can give logical proof or not. Faith should always be respected, until it attempts to contradict the conclusions that have been reached by science. I would never argue or contradict a person who chooses to believe in God. I would argue with someone who attempted to deny things like evolution because of their religious beliefs. There is a very clear difference between the two. I am a Christian and a 2nd year medical student. I reject the age of the earth as posited by mainstream biologists. God created the world in 7 days, He spoke the world as we know it into existence. ) and no, Christians do not troll, we speak our mind. EDIT: My bad, will step out of this thread entirely now. If you want an answer, shoot me a PM. Otherwise my posts will be a one-way troll fest with no replies from me.
Age of the earth is not in the realm of biology but rather geology or physics.
|
If you look for scientific meaning in religion you will be incorrect
if you look for spiritual meaning in science you will be disappointed.
If you think a religion will provide a more accurate answer to scientific questions you will find yourself arguing in vain against very basic findings that contradict your views
If you think science will fulfill any kind of spiritual fulfillment you're seeking, you will find that you're lying to yourself.
That's how I see the relationship between science and religion. They are two completely separate things and comparing them is as pointless as trying to compare history and mathematics
|
On July 31 2011 19:22 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 15:45 Bibdy wrote:On July 31 2011 15:05 arbitrageur wrote:On July 31 2011 14:57 MrTortoise wrote:
Science adapts and adjusts and verifies and changes.
Hey mate, Christianity adapts too! They no longer believe in slavery despite biblical support. Same for the death of homosexuals (at least in the developed nations), genocidal tendencies (hundreds of references of biblical figures killing entire populations with support from God, cutting off their foreskin, killing children, etc), women speaking in church damnit they've adjusted this! “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12) I Cor. 14:33-36 - "Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." Scientists adjust theories to fit new data. Christians cherry pick their beliefs to fit new cultural attitudes of the time period and country they live in. I think there's a very big difference between an evolution of ideas, and people picking and choosing which parts they like. One minute an anti-gay Christian will quote from Leviticus the passage saying words to the effect of "No man shall lie with another man, as they do a woman. For this is an abomination.", while simultaneously dismissing all of the passages of the Bible that seek to dominate and control women. Last I checked, the Bible itself hasn't changed in a fair number of years. Only the methods and applications in which people apply its teachings to their lives. Sigh, @Arbitrageur, If you really want to know what CHristians think on the passages which you have just quoted, shoot me a message. Trolling is fun and I guess it makes you feel very smart when you troll the bible. @bibdy - we have never claimed or never will claim to "Dominate and control" woman. Women who are believers will understand their role as helpers within a Godly household. Female Christians who believe in feminism and not the bible will not agree with what 1 Tim / Eph / 1 Cor says about the Godly household. But we must ask: what is the role of the man? Le'ts have a look... "21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body."Now when you read any part of the bible in context, you will see what we REALLY believe instead of twisting our words. If you claim to be an intelligent person, then you need to find out how Christians respond to these "seemingly trashy" passages from the bible. No we don't respond by cherry-picking.
Picking verses from the bible that correlate with how you want to perceive the bible is practically the definition of cherry picking. While the first little part "husbands, love your wives" is a great starter and general thought process- it only takes 1 verse that is completely sexist or racist or what have you from one book to discredit the entire book and the different books in the bible are full of them.
|
On August 01 2011 15:28 JesusOurSaviour wrote:we're kind of getting to the stage of "Pearls before swine", so I will cease to reply any further in this thread. I am glad you have read your dawkins / average atheist's objections to the bible. I also hope you find out what people from the other side say about these bible passages. If you really want to know why God gave all these "rules" which make no sense / are "evil" to the Israelites, then shoot me a message with the passages you don't like. If you don't trust me, ask a bible-believing friend you have at uni / school, I 'm sure they will be happy to answer your questions. Or ask Jesus Himself - pick up a new testament and read any of the gospels. Peace out
Oh that's funny, cause i just googled "bad gospel passages" and found this as one of the top hits.
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
This thread promotes you to actually research the things you believe in, and apply rational, critical and logical thought, supported by evidence, to come allow you to believe what you believe.
The fact of the matter is that if those things DID exist when it comes to proving that the Christian (or any ) religion is correct, i can assure you i would be a believer (more of a 'knower'?).
You have the ability to look up everything positive and negative in the bible, with a google search that will take you less than the time it takes you to take a whizz.
Just because you dismiss it to be a "dawkins / average athiests objections to the bible", doesn't make any of the things he is saying less true.
Put whatever spin you like on it, but i can't ever see a context in which slavery is right.
|
On August 01 2011 15:28 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
ask Jesus Himself
That jesus guy is rude.
He doesnt really like to respond. Just sayin.
....for an all powerful being that loves me, you think he could make the time to just say:
"hay man! love ya.".....
|
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
|
the only thing i dont like about logic is that the only thing you can use to prove logic is true is logic itself. seems kinda self defeating. its not logical to believe something that is proven through circular reasoning
|
As a universitystudent I love skepticism and critical thinking. Hell, im gonna make a living of it in the long run. This, though, I cannot unsee: conscience is regarded a need in order to produce science. However science cannot explain conscience.
Im all up for skepticism and critical thinking, but more so about skepticism and critical thinking of the matter itself. In so doing, you become lesser of an arrogant prick. Because honestly, if you think you are a fucking wise-ass, just because you only regard scientifically approved results as the one and only truth, who's the one-sided dimwit then?
Who believes in 'truth' anyways. Just use your third eye.
Regards
|
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote:
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
Um.....
If God, like, talked to me.... or just showed he was there. I would have no prob accepting him.
The problem is... He doesnt talk, ever. Nor does he show himself, so I have no reason believe in him.
No close mindedness here, I'm just not down for one sided relationships.
|
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote:
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
You've put your ass on the highest pedestal of all. The everyone's a dipshit but me stance.
|
On August 01 2011 15:21 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 14:55 arbitrageur wrote:On July 31 2011 13:58 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Don't just say F does not = MA if you haven't done a basic physics experiment showing just that. In the same vein, don't just say "Jesus is a myth" without doing any kind of research. "Seek and you shall find". This applies to any kind of knowledge, knowledge of God included.
This is a crap analogy IMO. I'll try to argue why... So for the two scenarios we have two consensus: A huge population of Christians agree that Jesus is the "son" of God, and a huge population of physicists agree that F=MA for classical systems. The problem is, (A) the former group have crap epistemic criteria, whilst the scientific method is used by the latter group. The latter is much better at solving problems. We have all the technology today because of it. The former believes in a book but disbelieves in thousands of other books with no justification. Conclusion: The physicists' consensus is much more reliable than the Christians' consensus. (B) There has been no reason advanced as to why the thousands of other mutually exclusive religions are incorrect and the Christians' claim is correct, yet there is evidence as to why F=MA, and not F=x, where x is thousands of other combinations of variables/equations. I'm sure there's many others that demonstrate the falsity of your analogy, but I'm having a break from trying to think of new ones for now. Interesting factoid: religious people have significantly lower IQ than the irreligious (in the closed system of a developed society). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence(You can check the primary sources by yourself, I trust). The above is a scientific claim, not an ad hominem attack. So I see no reason why I should be banned for posting this. I haven't looked at the sources, but are you aware of the Dalai Lama's IQ? I mean, hes pretty damn intelligent, and he's a religious leader. I am SKEPTICAL about the factual accuracy of the correlation between IQ and religiousness. On looking at the graph, its clear that a huge significant of believers are actually truly mentally retarded, and only towards the average IQ does the graph spread out some to be more equal all over. that's not really a surprise since mentally retarded people cannot use the same capacity of thinking and maturation of the mind to start doubting and rebelling against things we know, such as the case of teenage years. They rarely go through this phase because they are stuck with a child-like mind, which believes everything its told from authority figures, and anyone with any level of higher intelligence will appear to them as an authority figure. Thus, they will never lose god once they find god, due to being taught about god. And since IQ is a genetic relation, people with lower IQs will be more likely to believe, and to give birth to children, and then teach their children of similarly low IQ the same stuff about god. The graph therefor does explain some sociological things, and gives us an indication as to how religions can grow, but it does NOT imply that people who believe in god are stupid for doing so. Interesting Factoid: Bonobos and other research primates that have an IQ which is around 80 are significantly better at problem solving than the average human, with their preconceived notions and internalized thoughtless ideas that they learned osmotic-ally from growing up in society, to particular parents, with particular ideals, and particular education systems, and particular social groups, etc etc. I believe one of those videos (where the sunbather is naked and you can react with disgust as Parent or shame as Child) strikes on the same point of internalized beliefs that stem not from reason but from past culture.
1) I never claimed that the distribution of religious individual's IQ is leptokurtic in that no high IQ religious individuals exist. So I'm not sure why you brought up the Dalai Lama's apparent intelligence.
2) You claim you are skeptical of the factual accuracy of the statistically significant correlation between religiosity and IQ.
- Do you have any references?
3) You say "but it does NOT imply that people who believe in God are stupid for doing so." Yes, you are right. But it does imply that people who believe in a theism are more stupid than people who are agnostic or atheist, so long as low IQ people can legitimately be labeled as stupid.
- Do you have reason to suspect the studies in the primary sources of that wikipedia article are flawed, either in their experimental methodology or use of statistical tools?
3) The rest
|
On August 01 2011 17:35 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote:
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster. You've put your ass on the highest pedestal of all. The everyone's a dipshit but me stance.
Also +1 to this.
|
Great videos and nice that somebody took the time to make these, because the point is so very important. If people would be less eager to see the world in the black-white perspective the world would be a better place. We must always question our own beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
