Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 8
Why is religion the quintessential forum topic?
Topic Started: May 21 2008, 03:27 PM (2,766 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Resistance is futile.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Moonbat
May 24 2008, 03:29 PM
Quote:
 

Religious people would say things would deteriorate.

Non-religious people would say things would improve.

Everyone feels they are right.


With respect to what is true people feel far too much and think far too little.


There's no need to do either, k does both for them.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
May 24 2008, 11:26 AM
kenny
May 24 2008, 03:14 PM
John D'Oh
May 24 2008, 11:10 AM
If God stopped talking to everybody - and I mean everybody, including the blow-up-your-children brigade out East, I wonder whether things would deteriorate or improve.

Religious people would say things would deteriorate.

Non-religious people would say things would improve.

I'm not religious and I'm not at all sure of the answer. I know a number of people personally who would be in a real mess without religion. If religion were taken away, would the suicide bombers disappear? Some would, some wouldn't - let's face it there's a lot of politics behind the islamic extremists, and that wouldn't go away. I think it's an interesting question.

I think religion has two practical sociological effects, it makes people more civilized within a smaller group with whom they identify, and it makes them less civilized across groups they do not identify with. Both those effects are useful to political leaders: their religious followers can be made to fight by leveraging the "holy war" motivation, and yet those same followers can be made to follow rules and be nice to one another within their immediate society, reducing the need to spend resources overtly policing them.

Whether the world today would be better or worse without religion I don't know but I do know that if religion had never existed we wouldn't have the world we have today. I suspect it was a necessary ingredient for the advancement of civilization to the point that it has advanced.

But religion never existing is an absurd concept since if it was eradicated from everybody's memories today it would be reinvented tomorrow - centered on the golden rule, with random mythologies and figureheads, and always used by leaders to shape societies as they would like to shape them.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
You can't name any presuppositions.


Indeed, I have, as have others here. I won't waste my time recounting all of them again.

Quote:
 
If i said (etc.) then i'm not being rational


Of course - I've already told you that I'm not being rational about this subject.

Quote:
 
i.e. i'm not maximising my chance of being right.


Here's one of those presuppositions that you supposedly don't have (in fact, the largest and I believe, most erroneous one) - the presupposition that in all things, reason is the determinant of what is true.

Quote:
 
An irrational belief is a nonsense because by definitions beliefs are held to be right. If you accept your belief irrational then you accept it's not likely true


I do nothing of the kind. It is only your presupposition that rationality and reason are to be applied to every question, and the further presupposition that in considering all such questions, reason equates to the likelihood of truth. As I've already said, I reject the validity of that presupposition as pertains to this topic.

Quote:
 
Unless you're confused and mixed up.


I'm neither.

Quote:
 
Well that's good i mean better than before, before you used to say that you were 100% convinced and nothing in principle could change your mind.


And I remain 100% convinced. If considering a question which is not limited solely to reason, there is absolutely no contradiction for me to say that I recognize that my belief is not based on reason, and that applying reason may yield other explanations, yet I am simultaneously 100% convinced that my belief is nonetheless correct. It's only due to your presupposition that reason applies to this discussion, and that reason determines likelihood of truth regarding this question, that you think it's a contradiction.

Quote:
 
This mystical scientific standard is just the avoidance of error. The reason you think it's presupposition is because you fundamentally don't grasp why scientists use these standards in the first place.


Excuse me, don't insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly aware of why scientific method was established, and it is indeed a presupposition - one that by design, rejects consideration of supernatural (read "non-rational") inputs. It's perfectly logical and proper for the limited area of study for which it is intended. But based on its fundamental structure, it's an inadequate tool for discussing the subject at hand. If you want to speak French, you shouldn't try to do so using Spanish vocabulary. I don't reject models of molecular structures because they don't conform to the three classical orders of architecture. If you want to discuss the possiblity of a God whose existence transcends reason, you have to use a language that accommodates that possiblity.

You may reject the notion of a God who transcends reason. Any argument agaisnt that possibility boils down to the basic argument that, well, it just isn't reasonable - reason transcends everything, including any God who might or might not exist.

But reason has already shown itself to be inadequate as an explanation of everything in the cosmos. As others have pointed out before, long before reaching the level of God, reason is inadequate to explain very real things like love, beauty, and such - not what we think about those things, but the experience of the things themselves, before any thinking of them begins. More importantly, reason fails to explain morality - i.e., deliberate acts, voluntarily performed, for the benefit of others, that are specifically contrary to one's own self-interest. Most importantly, reason as sole determinant utterly fails when considering the origins of the cosmos. Reason is only up to the challenge of discussing the nature of what came about through that originating event. But ultimately, it cannot address the issue waiting for it at the very beginning of the tracks. It is utterly inadequate to the cause of the originating event itself. Reason cannot address how any thing existed before the event that created every thing. Put another way, a person who believes that reason is the sole determinant of truth will think they've stumped a theist by asking, "Who created God; where did God come from?" Understanding that the question of God is not bound by reason means that this is no problem to the theist. The same question, stated in non-religious terms, remains an eternally unsolvable problem to anyone who demands that reason applies to every question - far moreso, in fact, than to the theist.

At this core is the reality that there is one subject - one topic - to which reason and rationality are not adequate tools or limiting factors for the discussion. And that is the very subject that we're discussing. By definition - even scientific defintion - we ultimately regress back to a point beyond which it is impossible to limit ourselves solely to reason.

Moonbat, your intelligence is considerable, and your logic is impeccable, if applied to any conversation other than this one. But for you to insist on applying only reason to this discussion only means that you've chosen to bring inadequate tools to the table. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care if a person voluntarily sets himself up for failure, but to do so and then claim that you've resolved the question is simply laughable.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Indeed, I have, as have others here. I won't waste my time recounting all of them again.


You say things like i'm presupposing that only statements that are falsifiable can be true, but i'm not presupposing that. Reality is unconstrained, reality can be anything. I'm willing to accept a reality that defies explanation, i'm willing to accept a reality the defies descriptions, i'm willing accept any reality at all. We cannot impose any limitation on the nature of reality.

I'm happy to accept the possibility that things like invisible elephants do exist, i'm happy to accept the possibility that the moon is really a hallucination, that every single person has been hallucinating when they think they've seen the moon, that everyone who has been to the moon is actually lying. I accept that possiblity, i accept the possiblity of any of the religious myths being true from Zeus to Yaweh to Allah.

However if i'm going to say that one possibility is more likely than another then i have to base that on something. When it comes to sifting through this infinitely deep well of possibilities and trying to get close to those statements that are true. Then all we can do is use the input we have - all the input we have, all our experiences, and see which ideas explain those experience accepting the possibility of error at every stage, and being willing to modify or completely replace ideas if the new input to contrary emerges.

I do not believe in presupposing anything about reality, if you can present an alternative method to this then i am all ears.

Quote:
 

Here's one of those presuppositions that you supposedly don't have (in fact, the largest and I believe, most erroneous one) - the presupposition that in all things, reason is the determinant of what is true.


Reason does not determine what is true it should however determine what we think is true because it is nothing more than the maximal use of all the information we have.

What is true is totally independent of what we do or think. It's just that if want to figure out what is true, if you want the best bet for what is true then you're only option is to use the input you have from the world - i.e. experience and then see how ideas fit that experience.

Quote:
 

I do nothing of the kind. It is only your presupposition that rationality and reason are to be applied to every question, and the further presupposition that in considering all such questions, reason equates to the likelihood of truth. As I've already said, I reject the validity of that presupposition as pertains to this topic.


Reason is just coherent thought, it's just using the information available in a consistent way. If you say reason only applies to certain questions how are you going to decide which questions?. You're going to think it through? Oops back to reason again.

It's not presupposing anything about reality, reality can be literally anything, we could be sleeping armadillos in a 7th dimentional universe. We cannot apply any constraints to the universe, the question is what are you going to do to match your ideas to the world. I suggest you look at the world and you see which ideas fit and then build a picture accepting at every stage there is the possibility of error and be willing to reevaluate each and every conclusion of new information comes along that shows it's mistaken. What do you suggest we do?

Quote:
 

And I remain 100% convinced. If considering a question which is not limited solely to reason, there is absolutely no contradiction for me to say that I recognize that my belief is not based on reason, yet I am simultaneously 100% convinced that my belief is nonetheless correct. It's only due to your presupposition that reason applies to this discussion, and that reason determines likelihood of truth regarding this question, that you think it's a contradiction.


You can't say you accept the possibility of being mistaken and then say you're 100% convinced. That is a contradiction.

The very fact you're trying to have a discussion means you are appealing to reason, you are making arguments, that is an appeal to reason, you are trying to defend your experience as evidence that is an attempt to use reason. You're attempting to point out my presuppositions, that is an attempt to use reason (though you are wrong about any presuppositions)

Quote:
 

Excuse me, don't insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly aware of why scientific method was established, and it is indeed a presupposition - one that by design, rejects consideration of supernatural (read "non-rational") inputs. It's perfectly logical and proper for the limited area of study for which it is intended. But based on its fundamental structure, it's an inadequate tool for discussing the subject at hand. If you want to speak French, you shouldn't try to do so using Spanish vocabulary. I don't reject models of molecular structures because they don't conform to the three classical orders of architecture. If you want to discuss the possiblity of a God whose existence transcends reason, you have to use a language that accommodates that possiblity.


I'm not insulting your intelligence but you are fundamentally confused about science, what it is, why it works, and why it doesn't fit into the arbitrarily defined box you want to put it in.

There are no "non-rational" inputs in the world, there is simply experience. The fact that people have various religious/paranormal/etc. experiences is perfectly valid evidence for certain hypothesis it's just not valid evidence for the existence of a cosmic creator (or UFOs or psychics or whatever) because when you think it through you realise that these observations are expected. If we lived in a universe where Gods were regularly visible throwing lightening from the clouds, if we lived in a universe where the kinds of stories present the bible actually occured, and we had actual documented evidence of them occuring then we would have evidence for them, there no is reason to claim that we would apriori exclude the notion that there was some super intelligence. We do not exclude the idea that other humans are intelligent, we don't exclude the idea that animals are intelligent, there is no apriori reason for excluding the idea that the universe itself is intelligent or that there is some intelligence behind the universe it is simply that this idea has no basis. Nothing suggests it's true.

You keep referring to science as tool that only fits certain kinds of problem but you cannot justify this metaphor. Every time i ask you for an alternative approach you fail to answer me because you can't come up with alternative approach. Experience and thought that's what we've got, there is nothing else.

When you talk about a God that "transcends reason" what you are saying shows you don't understand what i mean by reason. I don't really understand electrons, the dominant philosophy of what electrons are and what electrons do is that they are fundamentally not-understandable. In that sense they are argued to "transcend" our ability to understand. I'm perfectly happy with this idea (though there are some caveats but they aren't important here). I still believe in electrons, before i understand what i do i believed in them. Because i had a reason to believe in them because there was stuff in the observable world that suggested they existed.

I'm quite happy with the idea that there could be a God and he might be fundamentally incompehensible just as i'm happy with the idea that in principle electrons might be fundamentally incomprehensible or that these pink unicorns might in principle be incomprehensible. However that doesn't alter the fact that if you want the best bet for what is true you have to avail yourself the evidence. To sets of inputs that support certain ideas over other ideas.

Quote:
 

You may reject the notion of a God who transcends reason. Any argument agaisnt that possibility boils down to the basic argument that, well, it just isn't reasonable - reason transcends everything, including any God who might or might not exist.


Reason does not transcend anything, nothing is constrained by reason. I make no claims that the universe has to in principle be comprehensible, i make no claims that we will inevitably be able to capture the truth completely. Reality can be anything however if we want to match our ideas to the world then we have to use the connection we have to reality i.e. our experience of the world and see how that fits the various ideas accepting the possibility of error at every step and being willing to reevaluate every conclusion in light of new information. That is reason it's just the best strategy we can use, unless you think you can come up with a better strategy.

Quote:
 

But reason has already shown itself to be inadequate as an explanation of everything in the cosmos. As others have pointed out before, long before reaching the level of God, reason is inadequate to explain very real things like love, beauty, and such - not what we think about those things, but the experience of the things themselves, before any thinking of them begins. More importantly, reason fails to explain morality - i.e., deliberate acts, voluntarily performed, for the benefit of others, that are specifically contrary to one's own self-interest. Most importantly, reason as sole determinant utterly fails when considering the origins of the cosmos. Reason is only up to the challenge of discussing the nature of what came about through that originating event. But ultimately, it cannot address the issue waiting for it at the very beginning of the tracks. It is utterly inadequate to the cause of the originating event itself. Reason cannot address how any thing existed before the event that created every thing. Put another way, a person who believes that reason is the sole determinant of truth will think they've stumped a theist by asking, "Who created God; where did God come from?" Understanding that the question of God is not bound by reason means that this is no problem to the theist. The same question, stated in non-religious terms, remains an eternally unsolvable problem to anyone who demands that reason applies to every question - far moreso, in fact, than to the theist.


Maybe you can't explain people's experience of beauty (i suspect you can get atleast somewhere) but there is evidence that people do experience beauty - they say they do, they react as if they do. You can explain a lot about love, perhaps you say that there is something about the sensation itself - the "qualia" that you cannot explain, but regardless there is reasonable evidence that people do experience love - they act as if they do, they claim to. Again you can explain a lot about morality in terms of game theory or in terms of kin selection, the fact that any society will inevitably involve rules, etc., but again this is of no consequence since there is good reason to think such behaviour does exist.

You're so confused about what reason is. It's fine to say there are things we don't currently understand, it's fine to say there are things that perhaps we will never understand or that there may well be things that cannot even be understood in principle. But none of that justifies believing something without a basis. None of that justifies refusing to consider other possibilities or refusing to analyse the situation.

Your notion of the origins is particularly confused - by definition nothing could have existed before the event that created everything. The reason "who created God?" is asked is because theists pretend that an argument for God is "well what made the universe then?" the question "well what made God then?" shows that argument fails. Because the supposed problem that is being solved - where reality came from still remains it hasn't been solved at all, hence it doesn't work as an argument. The problem of where did the observeable universe come from is not really a problem in the sense that whilst it may have an answer there is no reason to presuppose it must do. There is no reason to presuppose either that the universe (as we currently understand it) does not go back forever nor to presuppose that the was anything or indeed any time "before" some event like say the big bang.

No questions are "bound" by reason, no questions are "unbound" by reason, reason does not bind anything at all. Reason is nothing more than using one's mind.

Quote:
 

At this core is the reality that there is one subject - one topic - to which reason and rationality are not adequate tools or limiting factors for the discussion. And that is the very subject that we're discussing. By definition - even scientific defintion - we ultimately regress back to a point beyond which it is impossible to limit ourselves solely to reason.

Moonbat, your intelligence is considerable, and your logic is impeccable, if applied to any conversation other than this one. But for you to insist on applying only reason to this discussion only means that you've chosen to bring inadequate tools to the table. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care if a person voluntarily sets himself up for failure, but to do so and then claim that you've resolved the question is simply laughable.


And this is the crux this is where the special pleading becomes overpoweringly obvious.

You talk about only bringing reason to the table but that is the same thing as saying "you want to think about it, you want to ask whether or not these ideas actually stand a chance of being right, you want to know supports them, what casts on doubt on them, you want to question whether not there may some kind of mistake involved in them, you want to consider all the relevent information, like the kind mistakes we make, like all the possible causes of experiences, you want never to close yourself to any positibility never to claim 100% certianty, you want to use your mind. Well you can't do that."

You see your statement about any other topic. That is so absolutely right, any other topic but oh not this one. For this one you aren't supposed to use your mind to use reason you can't just do that you need to let yourself move "beyond" just using your mind.

And all the while you're trying to present arguments, you're arguing that we can't explain love or the origins of the universe, all the while you are appealing to reason because there is nothing else to appeal too. But your arguments fail, your notions are invalid, there is no basis for this idea not when you take into all the other observations that underly our understanding of the modern sciences.

Faced with no basis for this belief, you attack the notion of having a coherent basis for a belief, you attack reason, thought itself.

This attack on thought itself is exactly the same appeal that psychics make, that's exactly what UFOlogist make, it's the same anti-thought that every single superstitious belief is supported by. In a world where these ideas are invalid the only way they can propagate through populations is by switching off people minds from analysing them. This virus metaphor Dawkins uses is so fitting because that's what these notions of "transcending reason" are, they the memes that allow this religious virus to slip past the immune system of thought.

People immediately see that pink unicorns are ridiculous, brain working fine, same with invisible ninjas, or the idea that Santa is making people's parents given them presents. It's trivial, these bad ideas don't get through. But if you present them with an idea that is bound with their culture like a magic mind created the universe and wrote this book, ah that one protected by the familiarity, protected by the warm comforting feelings people have towards them, protected by it's antithought notions can slip through.

(which is why people innoculated with critical thinking skills or people with very strong mental immune systems that have bee trained by constantly use them trying to understand and work out the world around them are much less susceptible to the virus)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!

Posted Image

:leaving:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Any chance you have a picture of Mr. Spock on a merry-go-round?

Moonbat, you've pink-unicorned once too many. Feel free to continue talking to yourself, if you'd like. Meanwhile, all those nails remain in the box for want of a hammer.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
...brain working fine, same with invisible ninjas, or the idea that Santa is making people's parents given them presents. It's trivial, these bad ideas don't get through. But if you present them with an idea that is bound with their culture like a magic mind created the universe and wrote this book, ah that one protected by the familiarity, protected by the warm comforting feelings people have towards them, protected by it's antithought notions can slip through.

(which is why people innoculated with critical thinking skills or people with very strong mental immune systems that have bee trained by constantly use them trying to understand and work out the world around them are much less susceptible to the virus)

Good move, Dewey. Moonbat is a True Believer. He's not really listening to anything you're saying (as you point out).

I have tried to explain to him that religions and mythologies are cultural systems that are not analogous to his derisive "pink unicorns," but he's not listening to me, either (surprise).

I'd be lying if I said that this is what I expect from a world class education, too. Richard Dawkins (whom he's parroting) is akin to "pop psychology" in my book.

Sorry, Moonbat, calling it like I see it. I like you personally, but when you debate science vs. religion, you come off as dogmatic (extremely) and rude with this kind of self-serving derision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
May 24 2008, 02:30 PM
This attack on thought itself is exactly the same appeal that psychics make, that's exactly what UFOlogist make, it's the same anti-thought that every single superstitious belief is supported by.

In a world where these ideas are invalid the only way they can propagate through populations is by switching off people minds from analysing them.

This virus metaphor Dawkins uses is so fitting because that's what these notions of "transcending reason" are, they the memes that allow this religious virus to slip past the immune system of thought.


Very well put.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Good move, Dewey. Moonbat is a True Believer. He's not really listening to anything you're saying (as you point out).

I've listened to everything he's said Daniel.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
May 24 2008, 02:45 PM
Quote:
 

Good move, Dewey. Moonbat is a True Believer. He's not really listening to anything you're saying (as you point out).

I've listened to everything he's said Daniel.

No, I don't think so. At the heart of your thought process, he's a believer in pink unicorns, and mentally ill. You said so yourself. You're not really listening to him. The best thing for you would be drugs. College students experiment with drugs (last I checked). I recommend something natural. Marijuana. If you've tried that, mushrooms. You just think you have the universe down pat in terms of how you should see it. As we say in cultural anthropology, you need to have your "categories" shaken up a little. No hard drugs, please. :silly:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Well it's true i think he believes in pink unicorns but then i've explained why. Everyone's happy thinking that other cultural myths are silly, the cargo cults, the notions that the world is on the back giant tortuses, the idea that killing yourself to kill innocent people beams straight to heaven where 72 virgins away. Yet in each case those people are completely convinced based on nothing other their own conviction, unarticulatable experiences they've had that mean they quite certain they are right. But when it comes to ideas in our culture, that we were brought up with, that we like the sound of, suddenly we are supposed to accept those, not to ask whether or not they actually have any more basis these other ideas that we think are silly.

Haven't done much in the way of drugs but i would have thought they would reinforce rather contradict the notion that one need not invoke mystical creators to explain the various spiritual experiences people talk about.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Well it's true i think he believes in pink unicorns but then i've explained why.


Sure, Moonbat. Ok.

Quote:
 
Everyone's happy thinking that other cultural myths are silly, the cargo cults, the notions that the world is on the back giant tortuses, the idea that killing yourself to kill innocent people beams straight to heaven where 72 virgins away.


Yes, all cultural systems, all religions, and all mythologies are the same. Why didn't I think of this before. Thank you for enlightening me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I have tried to explain to him that religions and mythologies are cultural systems that are not analogous to his derisive "pink unicorns," but he's not listening to me, either (surprise).


But whether or not a myth is a "cultural system" doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.

Quote:
 

I'd be lying if I said that this is what I expect from a world class education, too. Richard Dawkins (whom he's parroting) is akin to "pop psychology" in my book.


I am not parotting Richard Dawkins, many things i do but parot other people is not one of them. I haven't even read the God delusion - I did not get my views from him they predated him. Infact, when i first saw Dawkins talk about religion it was some program on science vs. religion and i turned to the person next to me and said "someone else in the world understands!". I've haven't read any of the atheist tombs not Dennet or Harris or Hitchens nor Russel not any others, primarily because i think i know everything they would say and because i'm afraid of only reading things that agree with me. Infact the only book i recall reading that specifically deals with science vs. religion was Alistair McGrath's book, a book aimed at answering Dawkins perspective. (Actually i lie I have read Carl Sagan's exquisit book "The demon haunted world" which does refer to some of the issues, and explains what science is about and why it does what it does, the focus is more on science though and less on the specific conflict with monotheistic religions)

Quote:
 

Sorry, Moonbat, calling it like I see it. I like you personally, but when you debate science vs. religion, you come off as dogmatic (extremely) and rude with this kind of self-serving derision.


That's ok - i have no issue with you calling it how you see it but you see when you say i'm dogmatic. Well between me and Dewey only one of us claims 100% certainty (whilst paradoxically accepting the possibility or error).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Yes, all cultural systems, all religions, and all mythologies are the same. Why didn't I think of this before. Thank you for enlightening me.


Oh i'm not saying they are all the same, but surely since one dismisses all these all other cultural mythologies as pink unicorns one should atleast be willing to consider whether the mythologies present in our own culture might not also be pink unicorns.

(Particularly since those other people in those other cultures who subscribe to those other cultural myths react in precisely the same way dismissing the notion what they think could possibly be like a pink unicorn).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No Moonbat, you haven't listened to anyone. You hide behind "science" (in quotes because you use science the way a 4 year old uses letters) in order to argue your own preconcieved views, and you do not once consider what anyone else says as valid, unless they agree with you.

You cling to the "perfection" of science, and yet argue that the universe evolved randomly, with no order or purpose - and you can't see the ridiculousness of that. Archeology is a science - you don't seem interested in the fact that archeology has proven nearly every claim made in the Bible. Geology is a science, but you have to dismiss geological data as well.

You think you are so far ahead of everyone else, particularly those who, in your view, "believe in pink unicorns"... (lack of respect, arrogance, belittling those you consider yourself superior to) when in truth you have spend your life staring at an outlet unaware of the wiring it is connected to.

In other words, you're about the most ignorant little snot I've ever met.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

You cling to the "perfection" of science, and yet argue that the universe evolved randomly, with no order or purpose - and you can't see the ridiculousness of that


I don't claim science is perfect and i certainly don't think the universe has no structure/order. But a cosmic purpose in the sense that you seem to be implying it is a pink unicorn, it's an idea that has no basis. What is happening is that humans are anthropomorphising the universe, they are trying to understand something completely unlike them interms of intuitive familiar human ideas. We do things for a reason, we design things, we are aware and experience things, and so naievely we expect everything else to be like us. We antributed volition to the weather, to the spread of disease, to the sun, the moon and now to the universe itself.

Quote:
 

Archeology is a science - you don't seem interested in the fact that archeology has proven nearly every claim made in the Bible. Geology is a science, but you have to dismiss geological data as well.


I don't dimiss anything of the sort, the fact that bits of the bible are based on actual events no more implies God than the fact that one can come up with evidence that Mohammed existed. There are factual aspects to practically every myth that humanity has ever created. But that does not mean Zeus or Yaweh or demons or any other mythological entity actually existed as described by the various myths.

And geology - what geological evidence is there for God?

Quote:
 

In other words, you're about the most ignorant little snot I've ever met.


I roxxor!
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I told you such inflammatory language is unnecessary and turns people off. It didn't take long to prove me right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Well you no doubt have a point my diplomacy hasn't been exactly stellar but there is some difficulty because if you are to explain why evidence matters then you have to show what an idea lacking evidence (and is not protected by social acceptance) looks like - pink unicorns or flying spagetti monsters, etc. examples of that nature are inevitable because one is trying to illustrate this point that if you want to have a chance at the truth you need to base your ideas on evidence.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sarah_blueparrot
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Posted Image

He is my friend.
Death is simply a shedding of the physical body like the butterfly shedding its cocoon. It is a transition to a higher state of consciousness where you continue to perceive, to understand, to laugh, and to be able to grow.

- Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
He is a very nice creature, often people think he's evil because he looks a bit scary but really he's quite affable and likes nothing more than to sit in the sunshine watching the birds sing and the butterflies flutter amongst the flowers.

One word of warning though don't offer him bolognase for dinner - that never goes down well.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sarah_blueparrot
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
It is true that he is not blessed with beauty. However, he is very intelligent and has balls, that's for sure.
Death is simply a shedding of the physical body like the butterfly shedding its cocoon. It is a transition to a higher state of consciousness where you continue to perceive, to understand, to laugh, and to be able to grow.

- Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
May 24 2008, 11:12 PM
Archeology is a science - you don't seem interested in the fact that archeology has proven nearly every claim made in the Bible.

Beyond corroborating some biblical place names with ruins and artifacts, archeology has done nothing of the sort. If anything archeology has demonstrated that the origins of many of stories contained in the OT can be traced to mythologies outside of Israelite culture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
May 25 2008, 10:31 AM
Larry
May 24 2008, 11:12 PM
Archeology is a science - you don't seem interested in the fact that archeology has proven nearly every claim made in the Bible.

Beyond corroborating some biblical place names with ruins and artifacts, archeology has done nothing of the sort. If anything archeology has demonstrated that the origins of many of stories contained in the OT can be traced to mythologies outside of Israelite culture.

In this case when two cultures tell the same stories, is it because one culture copied the other, or because both witnessed the same events?
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Daniel
May 25 2008, 07:16 AM
I told you such inflammatory language is unnecessary and turns people off. It didn't take long to prove me right.

I'll save this one for future use, Daniel. :lol:

While Moonbat might not be the most diplomatic person on the board, compared to a number of others here he is a saint of understatement and politeness.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 8