TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie No, I don't care to read your post. I just wanted to point out that you've misinterpreted stevechenko's posts.

That obviously can't be the case--because I have shown how his arguments are utterly wrong. And all you've said is "whatever dude."

Cool. You have to to be right all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't like engaging in conversation with people like you.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Fellow TA's I am pleased to announce that we have a new village idiot amongst us. ALL HAIL shevchenko135!

lol, fail

truth is based on fact....what is fact? fact is something based on statements that a few people collectively decided was the way it is..


science is based on fact.

religion is based on dogma.


think about this..


PS. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and am a fanatic for science. the reason for my anger in this thread is the atheists calling people such as myself "foolish" and "idiots" for our beliefs and judging all of us based on the idiots that actually "impose" on your views which really is a bare minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee truth is based on fact

Truth isn't based on anything: truth is how things are.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee what is fact? fact is something based on statements that a few people collectively decided was the way it is..

Relativism is rooted in subjectivity, a quality that is antithetical to truth (if we accept that truth is singular).

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Cenik Truth isn't based on anything: truth is how things are. Relativism is rooted in subjectivity, a quality that is antithetical to truth (if we accept that truth is singular).

lol


http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3A+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Let's be clear, I'm an agnostic/atheist myself (depends on the day), but the double standard at work here really is rather sickening.

I honestly can't decide whether I'm more annoyed by the jesus freaks or the anti-religion fanatics in this thread.

I am VERY happy about this ad campaign, although I wish it were not necessary in the first place.

Warning: I offend theists. Read at your own risk.

I am, admittedly, a pretty arrogant militant atheist asshole, meaning that I would desire a world where religion was eradicated and everyone formed their beliefs based on logic and reason rather than faith in the supernatural.

I understand why people have religious beliefs... the stories and fables and imagery of religion can be very powerful and difficult to shake when so many people agree with you and would condemn you for questioning your faith (which is, by the very definition of the word FAITH, something that you cannot prove true.)

To those who believe that the earth was created and ruled by supernatural beings living atop mount olympus, with a great king Zeus who would throw lightning bolts to the ground when he was pissed off... well, I think you're crazy. To those thousands of people who believed this millions of years ago... well, they couldn't possibly have known better. They had no theory of electromagnetism to explain the true nature of lightning.

To those who truly believe that the earth was created by a magical sky wizard who sent his zombie son to the planet earth to die on a giant plus sign to save earth's human inhabitants from their sins. Well, I think the same of you. Your beliefs are absurd, but it's not your fault you were corrupted by such powerful imagery and societal pressures.

I see no difference between a person who believes in supernatural powers and a person who believes that Friday the thirteenth brings bad luck. These are simply absurd and archaic notions, which are as obviously false to me as they may be obviously true to you.

Unfortunately, as history has proven, strong religious beliefs can be extremely damaging to a society. When our leaders (like the 1/3 of the US congress that believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted) make DECISIONS based upon their "faith", disaster results. It's like playing blackjack based on your "gut instincts" instead of on sound mathematics. Worse, religion can cause people to act completely irrationally, damaging society in countless ways. How many more lives could we have saved if the US gov't hadn't instituted its ban on growing human zygotes for stem cell research? How many teenage girls' assholes could have been prevented from being torn open because they didn't want to have vaginal sex because they wanted to "save themselves for marriage"? How much other cultural retardedness, ignorance, and hatred could we eradicate if people didn't make decisions based on their beliefs in the supernatural?

n.b., I don't actually care what your beliefs are; as long as you don't make any decisions based on faith, you're A-OK in my books, although wearing a cross if you're an atheist is a bit dangerous I must say; generally I would take that as a big warning sign and I'd probably never approach you in public, for example. You're basically stamping yourself with something that symbolizes belief in holy zombie back-from-the-dead jesus and his magical sin-curing heaven-unlocking powers. Prepare to be treated as such.

*prepares for the barrage of straw man arguments that people will contest him with*.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I see no difference between a person who believes in supernatural powers and a person who believes that Friday the thirteenth brings bad luck.

I agree. So have you seen ad campaigns insisting to the world that Friday the 13th is A-OK and that the Easter Bunny doesn't really exist? Do we need those? Does anyone care? Why not just leave well enough alone? There are far more dangerous forms of ignorance out there.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut There are far more dangerous forms of ignorance out there.

Many, many people would disagree. Including two of my favorite thinkers: Christopher Hitchens and the great philosopher Daniel Dennett. Both of whom make a very hard to argue against case. Well, it's actually not that hard to make really--so you can't make a statement against an argument like this, when there is overwhelming evidence to show just that.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot

Well that was pretty uninspired. Don't do much thinking for yourself, do you?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Well that was pretty uninspired. Don't do much thinking for yourself, do you?

I do, but TA is not the place for such posts. I don't want to start blabbering on about philosophical implications of kolmogorov complexity and the recursion theorem.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I agree. So have you seen ad campaigns insisting to the world that Friday the 13th is A-OK and that the Easter Bunny doesn't really exist? Do we need those? Does anyone care? Why not just leave well enough alone? There are far more dangerous forms of ignorance out there.

I bet your opinion would change if, say, fear of Friday the 13th caused the economy to lose billions of dollars of productivity each year because billions of people were afraid to leave their homes. I believe that religion is even more damaging than this.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I do, but TA is not the place for such posts. I don't want to start blabbering on about philosophical implications of kolmogorov complexity and the recursion theorem.

Why not? Don't you want to be taken seriously?

I mean...if you're going to call yourself arrogant, at least justify it by not sounding like a complete moron.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee so what if they're stat holidays...why take the day off if you are so against the reason behind the holiday? demand to work instead.. PS. in regards to religious holidays...i absolutely hate it when people say "heppy good friday"

Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with religion for me. Nor does it for many other people. It's just a time of year that everyone has off so people can be together. Also, my birthday is on Christmas so I'm celebrating that, not the birth of a fictional character. (and a fictional birthday - Jesus' birthday isn't even December 25. LOL)

I also love it when religious people talk about ignorance. Talk about pot meet kettle. LOL religious people believe in everything from talking snakes, 900 year old men, a place to burn forever when you die, your own planet when you die and virgin births.. but AN AD ON A SUBWAY CAR? OH MY IS THAT OFFENSIVE OR WHAT?

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Why not? Don't you want to be taken seriously?

Well, I can give it a try, but I expect a lot of people won't bother reading or won't understand what the fuck I'm saying.

Basic anthropological notions tell us that we are the way we are because we'd not have survived as a species if things were different. Consider two tribes. One is a group of cannibals; the other believes in supernatural beings that punish them if they murder. Which do you think will have a greater population in a few generations? Which tribe's cultures and traditions would have been passed on?

The same goes for religions that teach their followers to "spread the word to others", or to "go forth and multiply", or to teach their children to follow the same religion, or to not use birth control, or to be monogamous (as to spread less disease), and so on. A lot of religious notions exist because they maximize the virility of religion itself. Are these good notions? Hell no. They make sense when you're trying to grow a religion as fast as possible, but not when you've got a finite planet with a large number of people to feed.

Moral notions don't have to be religious. One can easily deduce notions such as the golden rule by simply assigning reasonable objective functions to moral decisions. And generally, such rules make sense regardless of which objective function you apply, be it utilitarianism or so on. The most fundamental notion is that of the
prisoner's dilemma, which essentially states that pareto suboptimal nash equilibria can exist. I believe that EVERY CHILD should know and understand the prisoner's paradox, and should be made to play it over and over again until they UNDERSTAND why the golden rule is globally optimal, even if it is locally suboptimal. Then they need to understand how this very basic notion can be applied to EVERYTHING in life, from not littering to not being an asshole on the road and so on.

Now, at the end of the day, people are just clumps of molecules acting to the laws of physics (which may be deterministic, or perhaps not so; this doesn't really matter). How do we assign value to what we do; how do we decide that killing is wrong and that cocaine use should or should not be condemned? Well, we make rational arguments based on what objective function we're trying to maximize. Are we trying to maximize the overall average integral of happiness dt over a lifespan? Maybe. Seems reasonable. Almost ALL models give the same conclusions at the end of the day. But there are some important differences; I really believe that THESE are the most important in defining a secular moral system. My personal beliefs include stuff like:
- It better to have 1 billion happy people than 10 billion moderately content people. On a planet with finite scarce resources, this would imply that reducing the human population is a good thing. I agree with this notion.
- A human should be valued by its productive capacity. Killing a fetus is cheap. Killing a teenager is terrible because society has wasted many resources in bringing a child up but has yet to reap the rewards of its investment. Dignity in retirement is necessary as an incentive to keep people productive during their working life. And so on.
- Human rights are pretty simple consequences of these same ideas. I don't believe that life is sacred, but I do believe that it is in humanity's best interests to treat it as such in most cases. There are lots of grey areas, but this is OK.

A lot of people have an incorrect notion of "complexity". They think that if a robot builds a car, then the robot itself must be more complex than the car because it contains, inside it, the instructions for how to build a car. Then if a factory builds a robot, it in turn must be more complex than the robot, which is more complex than the car. This is incorrect, as proven by Kleene in 1938 (see Kleene's recursion theorem, which implies that there exist machines that can make copies of themselves.)

I really think that humans are just biological machines (I mean, the entire field of bioinformatics is based upon this simple notion.) A lot of people think humans are special and "they" are special because they get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror and think "gee, this is me. I feel myself having thoughts. I know I exist. I must have a magical supernatural 'soul' to give me this power." Well, no. A machine that could self-actualize could do the same thing. And when we build machines that realize they're alive (which is ENTIRELY possible), then they will want the same rights that we have as humans if we program them to be able to change their behaviour according to some kind of evolutionary selection (as we do in many genetic algorithms).

Unfortunately, a lot of people find it depressing that I think they (and I) are completely insignificant specks of carbon running programs in a universe which follows physical laws. They'd prefer to believe that they possess a 'soul' and have special powers to communicate with supernatural beings via 'prayer' and such. To me, these notions are absurd. As we learned with Zeus and the lightning bolt, the true explanation of natural phenomena are generally even more elegant and awe-inspiring than any supernatural explanation (I find the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics much more fascinating than old mythological explanations involving pissed off gods.) It's kinda shitty that so many disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with religion for me. Nor does it for many other people. It's just a time of year that everyone has off so people can be together. Also, my birthday is on Christmas so I'm celebrating that, not the birth of a fictional character. (and a fictional birthday - Jesus' birthday isn't even December 25. LOL)

historical records seems to suggest Jesus actually existed (whether he was son of God or did miracles and such is for another debate)

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Unfortunately, a lot of people find it depressing that I think they (and I) are completely insignificant specks of carbon running programs in a universe which follows physical laws. They'd prefer to believe that they possess a 'soul' and have special powers to communicate with supernatural beings via 'prayer' and such. To me, these notions are absurd. As we learned with Zeus and the lightning bolt, the true explanation of natural phenomena are generally even more elegant and awe-inspiring than any supernatural explanation (I find the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics much more fascinating than old mythological explanations involving pissed off gods.) It's kinda shitty that so many disagree.

i see. so centuries of people reporting supernatural events... they are all delusional or just plain nuts?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Well, I can give it a try, but I expect a lot of people won't bother reading or won't understand what the fuck I'm saying. Basic anthropological notions tell us that we are the way we are because we'd not have survived as a species if things were different. Consider two tribes. One is a group of cannibals; the other believes in supernatural beings that punish them if they murder. Which do you think will have a greater population in a few generations? Which tribe's cultures and traditions would have been passed on? The same goes for religions that teach their followers to "spread the word to others", or to "go forth and multiply", or to teach their children to follow the same religion, or to not use birth control, or to be monogamous (as to spread less disease), and so on. A lot of religious notions exist because they maximize the virility of religion itself. Are these good notions? Hell no. They make sense when you're trying to grow a religion as fast as possible, but not when you've got a finite planet with a large number of people to feed. Moral notions don't have to be religious. One can easily deduce notions such as the golden rule by simply assigning reasonable objective functions to moral decisions. And generally, such rules make sense regardless of which objective function you apply, be it utilitarianism or so on. The most fundamental notion is that of the prisoner's dilemma, which essentially states that pareto suboptimal nash equilibria can exist. I believe that EVERY CHILD should know and understand the prisoner's paradox, and should be made to play it over and over again until they UNDERSTAND why the golden rule is globally optimal, even if it is locally suboptimal. Then they need to understand how this very basic notion can be applied to EVERYTHING in life, from not littering to not being an asshole on the road and so on. Now, at the end of the day, people are just clumps of molecules acting to the laws of physics (which may be deterministic, or perhaps not so; this doesn't really matter). How do we assign value to what we do; how do we decide that killing is wrong and that cocaine use should or should not be condemned? Well, we make rational arguments based on what objective function we're trying to maximize. Are we trying to maximize the overall average integral of happiness dt over a lifespan? Maybe. Seems reasonable. Almost ALL models give the same conclusions at the end of the day. But there are some important differences; I really believe that THESE are the most important in defining a secular moral system. My personal beliefs include stuff like: - It better to have 1 billion happy people than 10 billion moderately content people. On a planet with finite scarce resources, this would imply that reducing the human population is a good thing. I agree with this notion. - A human should be valued by its productive capacity. Killing a fetus is cheap. Killing a teenager is terrible because society has wasted many resources in bringing a child up but has yet to reap the rewards of its investment. Dignity in retirement is necessary as an incentive to keep people productive during their working life. And so on. - Human rights are pretty simple consequences of these same ideas. I don't believe that life is sacred, but I do believe that it is in humanity's best interests to treat it as such in most cases. There are lots of grey areas, but this is OK. A lot of people have an incorrect notion of "complexity". They think that if a robot builds a car, then the robot itself must be more complex than the car because it contains, inside it, the instructions for how to build a car. Then if a factory builds a robot, it in turn must be more complex than the robot, which is more complex than the car. This is incorrect, as proven by Kleene in 1938 (see Kleene's recursion theorem, which implies that there exist machines that can make copies of themselves.) I really think that humans are just biological machines (I mean, the entire field of bioinformatics is based upon this simple notion.) A lot of people think humans are special and "they" are special because they get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror and think "gee, this is me. I feel myself having thoughts. I know I exist. I must have a magical supernatural 'soul' to give me this power." Well, no. A machine that could self-actualize could do the same thing. And when we build machines that realize they're alive (which is ENTIRELY possible), then they will want the same rights that we have as humans if we program them to be able to change their behaviour according to some kind of evolutionary selection (as we do in many genetic algorithms). Unfortunately, a lot of people find it depressing that I think they (and I) are completely insignificant specks of carbon running programs in a universe which follows physical laws. They'd prefer to believe that they possess a 'soul' and have special powers to communicate with supernatural beings via 'prayer' and such. To me, these notions are absurd. As we learned with Zeus and the lightning bolt, the true explanation of natural phenomena are generally even more elegant and awe-inspiring than any supernatural explanation (I find the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics much more fascinating than old mythological explanations involving pissed off gods.) It's kinda shitty that so many disagree.

You're wrong if you think people would be more likely to bother with all that other crap you wrote as opposed to this...although I can see how it was effective in provoking a response.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan historical records seems to suggest Jesus actually existed (whether he was son of God or did miracles and such is for another debate) http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Yeah, there's a lot of research surrounding this, and it's very interesting. It's certainly possible that the man existed and influenced a great number of people to do great things. The supernatural stuff... well, I have trouble taking people seriously if they truly believe that he turned water into wine, died for their sins, and was resurrected from his corpse via magical powers.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Yeah, there's a lot of research surrounding this, and it's very interesting. It's certainly possible that the man existed and influenced a great number of people to do great things. The supernatural stuff... well, I have trouble taking people seriously if they truly believe that he turned water into wine, died for their sins, and was resurrected from his corpse via magical powers.

i'm curious. what do you think of exorcism? apparently these shit stuff happens today (run a search on youtube. freaky stuff)

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan i see. so centuries of people reporting supernatural events... they are all delusional or just plain nuts?

Well, I think it is a combination of insanity, corruption, loss of information (ala the telephone game), but mostly the overall gullibility of humanity and the ability of humans to persuade others with powerful stories that they may or may not actually believe.

If I woke up tomorrow and a voice started talking to me in my head claiming it was god and I needed to succumb to its will... well, I'd probably check myself into a mental institution before I'd listen.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Well, I think it is a combination of insanity, corruption, loss of information (ala the telephone game), but mostly the overall gullibility of humanity and the ability of humans to persuade others with powerful stories that they may or may not actually believe. If I woke up tomorrow and a voice started talking to me in my head claiming it was god and I needed to succumb to its will... well, I'd probably check myself into a mental institution before I'd listen.

humans must be really dumb if they keep falling for this supernatural thingy business. millions and millions of human. over many centuries (and most of them would be as rational and sane as you and me)

fuck i'm starting to think my existence is fictional..

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan i'm curious. what do you think of exorcism? apparently these shit stuff happens today (run a search on youtube. freaky stuff)

All pseudoscience. Same goes for stuff like scientology and my personal favourite: homeopathic remedies. I can't believe that people out there actually believe that they can make medicine MORE powerful by diluting it with WATER. Just another example of confirmation bias and how ridiculously powerful the placebo effect can be. People's minds are swayed by powerful imagery and crazy stories. A lot of it is fake (think about the incentives people have to make shit like this up. Think of how rich the scientology guys are.)

Has any serious scientific study ever verified the effectiveness of a homeopathic remedy over a suitably administered placebo? No. Have any reproducible studies proven the existence of extrasensory perception that can, say, determine which cup a ball is under and succeed at a statistically significant percentage of the time? No. And if any such studies appear, I think it is FAR more luckly that they are bullshit than they are true. Think of where the money to fund these things comes from. Think of the parties that are interested. Think of the retarded news reporters that do anything for a story.

There are DOZENS of books on the shelves of bookstores today that talk about all kinds of SHIT like "auras", magical "crystals", astrology, etc. People spend $200 on a magical metallic bracelet that improves the way they feel with its "ionic resonance". This is all COMPLETE bullshit. It seems like there is a new fad every year.

Pseudoscience needs to die.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.