Originally posted by Capitalizt
It is valuable in separating true claims about the world from false claims...in discerning reality.
Yes, but of what value is that?
Posted by infiniteJEST on Dec-30-2010 18:01:
Damn this thread got philosophical n' shit.
Posted by DaRoZa on Dec-30-2010 18:05:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Indeed, I would maintain that science has no position on god. Since science is the study of the observable it cannot have any position on something that is entirely unobservable. So, unless the nature of god were such that god is observable and mesurable (which seems to be at odds with most conceptions of god) then it is outside the purview of science. With the two hypotheticals you advanced I would suggest that the only position one could take would be that a seemingly human body were found with 50% DNA shared with gold (clearly not possible) and that anonymous prayer showed some demonstrable improvement in brain surgery survival rates; respectively. Neither of those two things can be extropolated to god as matters of testable fact (an improvement in survival rates amongst persons undergoing brain surgery due to prayer does not necessarally mean that a divine power was involved or otherwise exists); subsequently, anyone who used such phenomona to claim proof of god would be making a claim beyond what the data actually supports, which would not a position that can be described as scientific since it's conclusions cannot be tested and verified.
my point is that actual scientific facts (that show that immaculate conception/virgin birth should be impossible, and prayer has no direct effect) have something to say about the probability of the biblical god existing, should you take certain claims as literal. but if you peel back and take all of these things figuratively, what are you left with in christianity? what makes it and its version of god more probable than any other conceivable metaphysical entity that can't be absolutely proven/disproved scientifically?
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 18:19:
quote:
Originally posted by DaRoZa
my point is that actual scientific facts (that show that immaculate conception/virgin birth should be impossible, and prayer has no direct effect) have something to say about the probability of the biblical god existing, should you take certain claims as literal. but if you peel back and take all of these things figuratively, what are you left with in christianity? what makes it and its version of god more probable than any other conceivable metaphysical entity that can't be absolutely proven/disproved scientifically?
Actually, virgin birth is possible; albeit incredibly improbable in humans.... immaculate conception if one holds to the idea that it is conceived by God cannot be tested as one would first need to establish the existance of god. My point is that science can only have a position on the mesurable, any further position one takes on the immesurable is not a scientific position... it may be reasonable but not science. I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask regarding why the Abrihamic god should be seen as more probable then any others as I would contest that any god of any scripture is not a full an accurate description of god should any such entity actually exist. So I suppose my answer would be that the god of the Bible in all likelihood does not exist as described; subsequently, it should not be considered any more (or less) probable then any other described deity which I would also suggest in all likelihood does not exist as described or conceived by any established belief system. What is left of Christianity though... quite a lot... practices, beliefs, a moral code, a crutch, comfort, a framework of thought and understanding, etc. A religion's value is rarely found in the probability that it's conclusions on the nature of existance are correct.
Posted by Capitalizt on Dec-30-2010 19:51:
quote:
It is valuable in separating true claims about the world from false claims...in discerning reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Yes, but of what value is that?
Ask anyone with a lifespan over 20..anyone enjoying a lifestyle beyond that of a frightened savage in the jungle. Emotion and instinct alone would not have pulled humanity out of the stone age. We needed to learn about what we are, what type of world we find ourselves in, and how things work in the world in order to tame nature and build up civilization. There is no tool other than reason for the job.
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 20:01:
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Just an FYI.... when Hal's posting there is a high probability he's arguing a position that is drastically opposed to his own.
Posted by ChemEnhanced on Dec-30-2010 20:09:
quote:
Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
do you really believe that women were created from a rib?
well they weren't created equal that's for sure
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Dec-30-2010 21:15:
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Ask anyone with a lifespan over 20..anyone enjoying a lifestyle beyond that of a frightened savage in the jungle. Emotion and instinct alone would not have pulled humanity out of the stone age. We needed to learn about what we are, what type of world we find ourselves in, and how things work in the world in order to tame nature and build up civilization. There is no tool other than reason for the job.
Yes, but why was that important? Why was it necessary? Sure, it had the effect of bringing about uniformity and cohesion to our species, eventually leading to you and I and everyone else prattling on over Internet forums, but do you think the primitive hordes of yesteryear had that in mind? Or was the span of things just a cosmic accident given particular circumstances our embryonic understanding of the cosmos can scarcely begin to describe in its entirety?
Knowledge, be it supposedly divine or scientific in nature, has always come with its high, its scent. It's why things like science and religion can be so divisive and viral within our species - we are addicted to seeking it out in all of its forms, whether they are of any consistent significance or objectivity, or not. They are equally as natural an inclination as the other, both with separate yet similar sets of benefits and inefficiencies, both complementing one another in the crucible of our species' experience.
Reason is a rather touchy, fleeting thing with this in mind. Whose reason does one subscribe to? Is reason not at the behest of discretion too, even when it is irrational? When someone's baby is sick, do you reason that it's reasonable to inform them that chances are their child is going to die due to a detailed, statistical assessment of their particular ailment given the propensity of infant mortality concurrence? Or is it equally as natural for our mindsets to soldier on in what could be reduced to ignorance, yet is situationally eschewed as mere inference or "hope"? What do you tell your withered, old grandma when she says she will see you next year? "Sorry, granny, that's just not reasonable. Chances are I'll never see you again- but don't sweat it! We're all just acids and compounds brought to a slow boil by the conceit of viral significance for the sole purpose of reproduction, you'll never see anyone again when you're dead!"
Reason is just no way to live your life as a complete human. Individuals got us where we are today; singular people doing what they thought best for their own situations, banding together to of course form competetive groups to best obtain resources, and yes, reasoning was an important tool in the development of this dynamic. But do you think anyone would even want to live past the age of 20 if they weren't capable of embracing all of the irrational shit we as a species partake in? All the subtleties that utterly defy reason as a code of intelligent conduct, yet define intelligence as we know it?
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Dec-30-2010 21:17:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just an FYI.... when Hal's posting there is a high probability he's arguing a position that is drastically opposed to his own.
Now that's just unreasonable!
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-30-2010 21:26:
what is a behest
Posted by Renzo on Dec-30-2010 21:26:
Stop being such a contrarian, Hal.
You and your views. Fuck, your views.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-30-2010 21:28:
quote:
Originally posted by Renzo
Stop being such a contrarian, Hal.
You and your views. Fuck, your views.
who let you out of your steeple? back in there 'til god says otherwise Posted by Joss Weatherby on Dec-30-2010 21:40:
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Religion, mainly the concept of the afterlife or that there is something higher than you in control, is a way to satiate the masses and provide a false sense of hope or a reason for their lack of control. If this life is only temporary then why try to change things, especially if you do not have control anyways?
For those of you who chose to keep believing I thank you, it makes it easier for the rest of us to control you. Posted by Fledz on Dec-30-2010 22:55:
Nou, you couldn't control a dog on a leash.
Posted by Zyklon_Jay on Dec-30-2010 23:30:
man i want fucking ribs.
Posted by Vernon Wanderer on Dec-30-2010 23:36:
quote:
Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
man i want fucking ribs.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-31-2010 00:25:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Paul, I know you love that book but the whole war kinda ended in 68CE when the anti-christ killed himself.... or if you want to take a more liberal view; in 313 when Conny decided Jesus was the dude.
i told you guys, theists are cunts! Posted by Znack on Dec-31-2010 01:14:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I would maintain that science has no position on god. Since science is the study of the observable it cannot have any position on something that is entirely unobservable. So, unless the nature of god were such that god is observable and mesurable (which seems to be at odds with most conceptions of god) then it is outside the purview of science.
Science is not about directly observing everything - it is enough to observe the effects of the physical world. If god has no effect on the physical world, what relevance has he? Nothing he does is heard, seen or felt.
If he has created something, it has physical traces. If he ever talked to someone, perhaps. Muhammad or Jesus, then it has physical traces. To say he has no physical trace is the same as saying he does not exist.
Posted by ModernNosferatu on Dec-31-2010 02:47:
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
Science is not about directly observing everything - it is enough to observe the effects of the physical world. If god has no effect on the physical world, what relevance has he? Nothing he does is heard, seen or felt.
If he has created something, it has physical traces. If he ever talked to someone, perhaps. Muhammad or Jesus, then it has physical traces. To say he has no physical trace is the same as saying he does not exist.
Posted by woscar on Dec-31-2010 02:56:
quote:
Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
stolen
What gave it away? Was it the name of the original author at the end? Or the quotes? My money's on the name of the original author. I knew I shouldn't have done that. Dammit. Posted by EddieZilker on Dec-31-2010 03:00:
Posted by Renzo on Dec-31-2010 03:02:
I think he means "stolen" as in he's planning to use the quote, too, Oscar
Posted by woscar on Dec-31-2010 03:11:
quote:
Originally posted by Renzo
I think he means "stolen" as in he's planning to use the quote, too, Oscar
Well, it's Jay so you never know. The trolling bastard!
Posted by woscar on Jan-01-2011 15:28:
Irony is fucking awesome.
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Jan-01-2011 15:48:
I love how none of the other... uhh... reporters?... dared to mention there was irony in his statement. They knew they would have been vaporized the moment they cut to commercial, though not by any divine hand...
