Religion

(Discuss literally anything here including introductions)

Re: Religion

Postby Rakim » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:19 am

shredingskin wrote: Do you rely on faith that a red magic unicorn doesn't exists ? Or a brumphtydhonler ?
To stop with fiction stuff, do you have faith that gravity will stop working ? Do you have faith that your house will not dissapear tomorrow ? Stop equating faith with belief.

If by "my beliefs" you mean, "thinking that what the scientific community might be right about their claims" I already responded, it's not blind belief, it's about expectations based on observation/evidence. I don't BELIEVE that the universe came from quantum movements in a 0 energy universe, but it seems the best explanation that I've heard that might explain it.

And then again, when you're saying "doesn't proves that god doesn't exists", then saying 'I didn't mean it to say that god does exists" doesn't matter, it's the same faulty logic. Trying to invert the burden of proof doesn't change that.

About the epicuro's phrase, is just to show how easy can god be disproved quite easily, and I said I didn't want to quoting the bible, but it's just a google search:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html

God is perfect, the bible is the word of god, the bible is imperfect, god is not perfect.

And that's just doing imperfect, the only way to talk about god is adding more fiction, because there's not any evidence of it existing.

God is a fiction character, there's nothing more to it, If you want to believe it whatever, but let's stop equating the study of the universe with fiction.


Think bigger than just the Abrahamic god dawg.
Rakim
Machine Gun Fist
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: July 2004
Favorite title: Shenmue II

Re: Religion

Postby MiTT3NZ » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:32 am

Ah, now I've worded it wrong. I mean scientists as a whole, not individuals. Individuals can, will, and do get shit wrong. It's their community I trust. If they were wrong then nothing would work. It's pretty simple and straight-forward. It's not faith in a religious sense. So I see your "definition" and raise you "context".
User avatar
MiTT3NZ
Class A Cunt
Shenmue III
 
Joined: January 2005
Location: Manchester, innit!
XBL: Mittens2317
Steam: Mittens2317
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Football Manager 2012

Re: Religion

Postby Mr. Frozen » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:40 pm

The thing about science is that it is nothing more than skepticism and disproving things. All science is based on axioms that one cannot really prove is true, but is accepted as the universal truth because it cannot be proven wrong. Newtons laws of motion, for example. Of course these axions are proven wrong, but that doesn't really cause a breakdown in the science. Eclid and his geometric axioms are an example of this. He stated that parallel lines never intersect, and lines only intersect at one point. Made perfect sense... until you think about lines on curved surfaces. Science didn't implode on itself, it just was amended that those axioms only hold in space with zero curvature. Euclid's ideas are still valid in modern mathematics, you just need to understand the context.

Now with religion, if someone says something in the bible is wrong, people lose their minds. A lot is open to interpretation, and depending on what context you are willing to accept, everything still remains valid. I'm an atheist myself, but I can understand why people may believe in god. I suppose religion is based off a single axiom: that something had to create the first objects in our universe. This is a reasonable conclusion since you can prove that every single thing we see came from something else. One can then logically deduce that every single thing we see know must've came from some specific source(s). There is absolutely zero reason to think any different because there is nothing in our world that proves this line of thinking wrong.

I'm an atheist because I find all of the extra shit a bit iffy. There is no reason for me to believe that the grand creator is able to speak to us and do all that other magical shit that was written in the various religious books.
User avatar
Mr. Frozen
Machine Gun Fist
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: September 2003
Location: Earth

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:59 pm

dbzruler88 wrote:Atheism = the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

That's all it fucking is.

It isn't a belief system. It is saying, show me peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports your belief, and I will consider going to church on sunday.


Described Atheist: "I do not believe there is a God"
Rational Person: "So you believe there isn't a God?"
Described Atheist: "No I don't believe that there isn't a God, I just do not believe that there is a God"
Rational Person: "lmao wut"

Here are your options: 1.) I believe there is a God, 2.) I do not believe there is a God, 3.) I have not yet come to a conclusion if there is a God.

If you wanna be agnostic... then go ahead... you don't need faith to be agnostic.

Anyway, people don't just blindly believe in a God, this is a really ignorant thought of theism. They look at evidence found in the world/science and come to the conclusion that there is a God. Atheist do the same thing, but they come to the conclusion that there isn't one. Neither has absolute certainty, because it can't be proven (or hasn't been), which is why both groups must rely on faith to a degree.

Also why the fuck am I still here arguing this basic as fuck shit.

MiTT3NZ wrote: Ah, now I've worded it wrong. I mean scientists as a whole, not individuals. Individuals can, will, and do get shit wrong. It's their community I trust. If they were wrong then nothing would work. It's pretty simple and straight-forward. It's not faith in a religious sense. So I see your "definition" and raise you "context".


Well, the scientific community is not comprised entirely of atheists. There are many theists in the scientific community. Anyway, the scientific community is leaned so heavily towards a materialistic ideology that it's very biased against alternative scientific thought. Even those in the scientific community who want to expose problems with theories that merely support materialistic viewpoints are often scared of pursuit because of what it'll do to their career. Just recently a geologist was denied permission to research a particular site (can find source if necessary, but can't think of the details at the moment) because of his religion. Religion is often career suicide in scientific circles—not because of poor science, but because of the scientific communities overwhelming bias towards a materialistic ideology. Evolution, for instance, is not proven fact and has a staggering amount of problems/lack of evidence, but nobody can suppose alternatives because it seems as though that is against a materialistic ideology. Science textbooks even go as far as to print lies—exaggerating the relevance of certain experiments, for example (Miller–Urey experiment). I personally wouldn't put my faith in people so dogmatic to their ideology. Merely trusting in scientists is not enough—research their claims for yourself. With the internet, there's no excuse anyway.
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

Re: Religion

Postby MiTT3NZ » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:47 pm

Don't talk to me about axioms when I don't even know what the fuck they are. Science is about discovery and understanding and turning sand into something that we can glue our eyeballs to.

And Thief... I wasn't talkin about religion or atheists, the conversation had just moved onto the "belief in science is faith" angle. People scared about their careers need to grow a pair of bollocks or get the fuck out.

MiTT3NZ has received a thanks from: Thief
User avatar
MiTT3NZ
Class A Cunt
Shenmue III
 
Joined: January 2005
Location: Manchester, innit!
XBL: Mittens2317
Steam: Mittens2317
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Football Manager 2012

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:59 pm

"Science is about discovery and understanding and turning sand into something that we can glue our eyeballs to."

fucking lol

=D>
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

Re: Religion

Postby shredingskin » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:58 pm

@Rakim, I use the abrahamic god, because like I said earlier, it's the most common fictional depiction, is typified and easy to find sources (than let's just say "it's like a love energy", then proceed to exchange it with the abrahamanic god, but without the texts, always moving the goalpost), because abrahamanic religions have a lot of power and I find a lot of those beliefs quite dysfunctional with the modern world (or straight fucked up).

Sorry ThIef, but most of the problem comes with your assertion that believing = faith, and that's just an aberration of language. Let's say you like cereal, no one in their right mind would say "I have faith I like cereal", it's used as a synonym pretty much only in religious context, faith is a devout belief in something without evidence that's why it's pretty much only used in religious context and future proclamations in the vernacular.

dbzruler said that atheism isn't a belief SYSTEM, and it's accurate (even though today can be conflated with scientific realism and skepticism), most of the times people that believe in gods do have a belief system, basically because most think of a "ruled universe", an interventionist being or a "energy of balance/good", whatever the flavor is. Yes atheists don't believe in gods, they don't have FAITH there isn't any gods, because the burden of proof is on the one asserting there is.

Like you said, you can research the scientific claims yourself, and ''anybody' can debunk them (because in hard science results should be falseable and reproducible), it's the same reason you don't take all your food/drinks to the lab to see if there isn't poison, because you have already tried a thousand of times and it didn't, so you have an expectation based on observation and experience. Of course in the regular domain our observations aren't as methodical and empirical as in the scientific realm, but most of the time our claims are not of the same importance and scope, so the experience becomes good enough evidence.

If you want to go with the "god of the gaps" argument, like you did with evolution, I can turn it around just as easy: why would a god take so many iterations to create a fucking bird ? Why would the fuck we still have not working appendixes ? Why the fuck would an intelligent design left the signs of the evolutive process in most animals ?

phpBB [video]

There is quite a lot of alternative theories to evolution, evolution is taught a fact not because "there are some gaps", but because there is ENORMOUS evidence of it. FFS we even fucking know which sequence of DNA gave us our eye color, we know how it divides, we know how it mutates, and we know how it mixes to create a new animal.

You know why nobody will ever again think "but maybe it's god" ?, because THAT'S NOT AN EXPLANATION, you just only mud the question with more questions like: what created god ?, how did god do it?, WHY did god do it?, why god appears to troll everyone leaving signs of evolution ?, if god did it how the fuck there are so many fucked up species/animals/individuals ? And the most successful answer you can muster is that "god made evolution", and just leaves open the same can of questions, for something that is not needed AT ALL, that is goodwill faith based on fiction.

BTW evolution = / = abiogenesis, is a different subject.

Do you know why science is concerned only with "materialist ideology" ?? Because that's the only thing there is. You are conflating materialism that has bad connotations, and ideology meaning it's just a lens to see stuff. If you can provide an example of ANYTHING outside the natural realm, my best bet is that science will study it, but the natural IS material. You know what was considered "supernatural" ?? Thunders, the sun, the planets, fucking everything we didn't understood, and thanks to science we now do (for a good part at least).

Like really it sounds nice saying "lol those scientist ideologues", but what the fuck are they supposed to study ?? The unnatural ?? Ghosts ?? Give them a ghost then, find one, because my best bet is that you won't, and my best bet for you not finding it it's because they don't exist. Really, they've found things that barely have any gravitational pull, how less materialistic do you want them to go ?? It looks like you're saying "they're not studying god, that's materialistic, it's an ideology like feminism or capitalism". IT'S NOT, there's nothing to "observe" about god, nothing reacts to "god", there's not a single evidence of "god", because "god" is a fictional character. That's why they can't study it with science.

shredingskin has received a thanks from: RootyKazooty
User avatar
shredingskin
Machine Gun Fist
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: March 2012
Location: Argentina
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Some indie games.

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:41 am

I mean, you're just wrong about the faith thing dude. You hold a belief in something, that there isn't a God, and you do not have proof in that belief. I don't know how to explain this any more simply. You act as though people don't come to a conclusion about God based on evidence. They do. The only difference is that you don't come to the same conclusions as those who believe in God. It's as simple as that. You have faith in God not existing, and your faith is strengthened by the evidence you find in the materialistic world. You deeply misunderstand what faith is. It's like you think faith is blindly believing in something with no reason. That's called Fideism and it is not common of most (nearly every) theists.

FFS we even fucking know which sequence of DNA gave us our eye color, we know how it divides, we know how it mutates, and we know how it mixes to create a new animal.


Um, we do not know the processes that account for DNA. We do not know how life originated. We do not have a proper mechanism for the primordial soup (not the proper time for life to supposedly arise in such a soup). We do not have transitional stages between species. Fossil records hardly support Darwinism (something Darwin himself said would be a problem to evolution). There are abrupt appearances of many species in the fossil record (Cambrian explosion). Random mutations do not account for irreducible complexity. I mean the problems go on and on. You must have a funny definition of what it is to know something.

I'm not here to talk about evolution—I'm agnostic towards the idea. I have not come to a conclusion on the subject, so I don't have faith that it is or is not true based on the evidence provided. But I know that it's not a perfect explanation—far from it. Scientists won't mention the problems of evolution though, many of them treat it as though it's fact... and why would they do that? Hmmmmmmmmm...
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

Re: Religion

Postby shredingskin » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:11 am

Thief wrote: I mean, you're just wrong about the faith thing dude. You hold a belief in something, that there isn't a God, and you do not have proof in that belief. I don't know how to explain this any more simply.


It's because that's not how logic works. You can't disprove a negative. "GOD" is something elsewhere created (let's say discovered), the burden of proof relies on them, the only "proof" is a book of historical fiction full of inaccuracies. You are saying that some people have proof and evidence, show it, and don't make it anecdotal because exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

You're conflating evolution with the creation of life (and it's true, as far as we know life might have originated in another planet), but evolution is how animals did evolve through the years. And I already acknowledge you that there are gaps in evidence, but there are LOTS of evidence to prove it right, we have lots of transitional stages between species (specially because every animal is in transition), that's why I told you about the god of the gaps, you are using a gap in evidence to keep the goalpost moving. You can even see evolution in process in dogs, in just a matter of years, you can see it in plants, in your house. We know how did eukaryota cells formed, we know know DNA reproduces, how RNA works.

There's bast amount of knowledge and evidence, but you are pointing to exceptions to make a point, even when it's happening right in front of your eyes, and the point you are trying to make (though tacit, but let me have a little creative interpretation), really doesn't accomplish ANYTHING to debunk the actual knowledge.
There were millions of things we didn't know, and the more we learned about them, none of them had ANYTHING to do with a "god", you're just appealing to we "don't know X yet, so it might be work of god". But again that doesn't explain ANYTHING. First find proof of god, then study it, then I'll raise the question of "what created god".

I don't mind people having their own philosophy that helps them through life or whatever, but I don't see why some people want to add their own philosophy to the other realms that just don't apply.

To just throw a hand in good faith, I do like the esoterism of religions, it's another domain of knowledge, I see it as stale, but I don't see it a lot more different than psychology, philosophy or sociology in the regards that both can tell individuals or groups of people how to live a "good life" (in some of the branches). But I don't understand why that esoterism has to permeate the other domain of knowledge.
User avatar
shredingskin
Machine Gun Fist
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: March 2012
Location: Argentina
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Some indie games.

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:27 am

I didn't say anybody had proof. Not being able to prove a negative is absolutely irrelevant. The point is that neither side has proof. They have supporting evidence that leads one to infer a conclusion. The conclusion being either "God exists" or "God does not exist". If one wants to assert belief in either claim, one must do so on faith precisely because they don't have proof. This is what faith is. A leap to a conclusion in the absence of proof.

No proof + belief = faith
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

Re: Religion

Postby shredingskin » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:33 am

1- Tell/show me the evidence, and for something as big as the creator of everything should be pretty damn good. TBH, in physics there are a lot of patterns that are simply awesome, but nothing of it infers that there's something else than a pattern in the reality we can observe.

2- One side doesn't need proof: Someone says "there is X", "ok, show/prove me X", "you don't have proof that X doesn't exists lol". That's not how logic works, the burden of proof doesn't relies on the one that doesn't believe. I don't need proof that something doesn't exists if it hasn't proved anything.
User avatar
shredingskin
Machine Gun Fist
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: March 2012
Location: Argentina
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Some indie games.

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:49 am

1.) Research it yourself
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tele ... arguments/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... arguments/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... he_Gospels

2.) I'm not explaining this same thing again for the millionth time. If you can't understand what faith is by now, then it's no longer my problem.
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

Re: Religion

Postby RootyKazooty » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:26 am

shredingskin wrote:.....Why the fuck would an intelligent design have left the signs of the evolutive process in most animals ?.....


I know with 100% certainty that intelligent design is BS whenever I catch a glimpse of my balls.

That crime should be an inside job.
User avatar
RootyKazooty
Asia Travel Representative
Asia Travel Representative
 
Joined: March 2017
Favorite title: Shenmue
Currently playing: Shenmue II

Re: Religion

Postby dbzruler88 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:35 am

Just recently a geologist was denied permission to research a particular site (can find source if necessary, but can't think of the details at the moment) because of his religion. Religion is often career suicide in scientific circles—not because of poor science, but because of the scientific communities overwhelming bias towards a materialistic ideology. Evolution, for instance, is not proven fact and has a staggering amount of problems/lack of evidence, but nobody can suppose alternatives because it seems as though that is against a materialistic ideology. Science textbooks even go as far as to print lies—exaggerating the relevance of certain experiments, for example (Miller–Urey experiment). I personally wouldn't put my faith in people so dogmatic to their ideology. Merely trusting in scientists is not enough—research their claims for yourself. With the internet, there's no excuse anyway.


I think you are referencing the creationist that was trying to drill into the grand canyon to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

They denied it because it has been proven through thousands of other means that the earth is much older and they didn't want somebody defacing a national landmark.
User avatar
dbzruler88
Atheist Activist
"After Burner...Great!"
 
Joined: March 2004
Location: Iowa
PSN: jeremylovesanna
XBL: jeremylovesanna
Favorite title: Shenmue II
Currently playing: Yakuza 0

Re: Religion

Postby Thief » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:30 pm

The situation you're describing was not denied because of defacing a national landmark. His methods were not invasive at all—and much more invasive methods are allowed in the grand canyon. He was unconstitutionally rejected because of his religion.

As the Park Service finally admitted, ‘Dr. Snelling’s proposal is well stated with methods that are similar or equal to standard scientific practice to test the hypothesis provided,’ so it is the right choice to let the research go forward.”


from https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/p ... -geologist
User avatar
Thief
LAMEWAD
Machine Gun Fist
 
Joined: December 2010

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB © 2000-
ShenmueDojo.net