what would you find more credible? The earth was created in 7 days? or that it took a good 4.3 billion or some aught years for our planet to develope due to radiometric dating?
I Think they're equally credible, or equally incredible because neither are proven, or provable, and I don't think it matters that they are or aren't. My point isn't about the validity of either, my point is that they are both complete suppositions based on completely fallible perception of different things.
Why does it matter how we got here? Why do we need an 'answer' when it is logically impossible to ever have one? The only reason i was backing religion is because I think it is equally as irrational for people to make scientific claims about the state of reality, when they are based upon equally flimsy premises.
Sure, empiricism deals with things we can physically experience, but look at Descartes, and other methodological skeptics. Nothing is beyond doubt. You and I most likely realise that science is a suggestion of hose things might be, but I personally get extremely annoyed (and have had many rants on here about) lay scientists who see scientific principles as absolute truths, despite completely fallible, historically contextual and entirely subjective perceptions of a universe in flux. To me personally that is the same as people who base their world view on metaphysical perceptions.
I know i'm in the minority and i don't think you and i disagree on many points, but I personally think its important :)
infiniteJEST
I believe in Trance.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
This is such a crock. Anything can be “rational” within its own framework, if that framework has absolutely nothing to do with rationality.
It would be more accurate to say religion is CONSISTENT within it's own framework. It can provide consistent answers provided you accept the first premise (god exists). What they have is a logically valid system, but an unsound one. A logically valid argument is one in which the conclusions follow inescapably from the premises. Theists certainly have that. They can start with the premise that an all loving/knowing/powerful god exists then develop a coherent worldview and various arguments surrounding it. The problem is that that premise is taken as a given for them, but to outsiders it is not at all justified. In order to have a logically valid and SOUND argument to justify a worldview, all of the premises must be true. This is what the theists lack. ;)
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
The difference is progression of our species in intellect, technology, life expectency, knowledge and so forth. Take a look around the world and see what religion has to offer people? War, segregation, biggotry and so forth. Why do we have to be constrained to a system which says "You jews are the chosen ones" or "anyone who isn't of the islamic faith is an infidel", or "slavery is justifiable"
As Hitchens so eloquently says, religion was our first (and consequently our worst) attempt at philosophy, science, medicine, etc. It's time to let it go folks.
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
This is such a crock. Anything can be “rational” within its own framework, if that framework has absolutely nothing to do with rationality. Its also really easy to provide “answers” when you can just make them up as you see fit. It makes absolutely no sense to believe in religion’s answers any more than ANY answer you get ANYWHERE from ANYONE. So basically, its OK to believe virtually anything because, you know, it makes us feel good to “know” things.
Btw, its not a ing answer if its ing wrong!
Ok PKC. Very well said
/Thread !
Meat187
ok guys, thats enough. I want to write a long post too. Everyone here does it. Fags! you know, looking awesome and clever etc, so i'll do just that right now. i don't care at all about the topic so I'll just write some random crap here. You ready? Let's go!
This is really jusr a direct stream of my thoughts I'm putting down what's in my mind right now, no spell checking and all that. Like Joyce in his ty Ulysses, just a stream of a regular day in Munich. Maybe, just like with Joyce, people will regard this post as a masterpiece later. Joyce was just a troll.
OK, something else. I read about an ultra-short movie competetion (less than 1 min). What do you think about this idea: we see a grandma wearing combat boots and a typical Hooligan / Nazi skinhead. The grandma says something like "Stupid Nigga!" and the Nazi is like " off, Nazi scum". Then the grandma does a backflip where she kicks him right into the face/chin (martial arts style), knocking the guy out. It's supposed to be a statement against racism and how it comes in many disguises.
Tomorrow is a new house episode and I'm already looking forward to that. I should work now, but can motivate myself. I've been trying to make this stupid partial CCD readout work for two days now and failed. Worst of all, my awesomely elegant solution with adapting the transformation coefficients by multiplying with a translation matrix doesn't work, which sucks. I like elegant solutions. Homographies are gay. Obviosuly. Maybe I should go to the other lab and join my female co-workers. One of them is hot but she has a boyfriend. If only I were a linguist I could pick her up anyway. I want to do a second degree anyway, maybe instead of medicine I'll choose linguistic, philosophy or German literature. Just to pick up nerdy intellectual chicks. When I'm drunk and don't care about looking like an arrogant dick I say that I should have studied something else and that my problem is that I'm so brilliant that I can do anything, so it's hard to choose. But really, I#m probably just always longing for what I don't have. Wait, am I drunk at work now? I guess drinki9ng also just makes you release anything without thinking.
When I get home I wanna look around for tracks to put in my upcoming epic Trance Energy 2000 style mix. But I#m too lazy to start working seriously on that.
Guess I need more text here to make this look really thoughtful and imprtant. Maybe say something on topic. Intelligent Design, huh. That is bull. Why is there any need for a long 11 page thread when those 3 words say everything relevant already. Do we have someone arguing in favor of it here? Is the whole c0r ganging up on him? Is it Sushipunk? Also, shut up, 40 posts / page is too much.
Why did Couch Cocumber change his name to Infinitejest? That novel sucks. Haven't read it. Too long. And too pretentious. Maybe I'll get it one day, but if I don't like it after 100 pages it'll be a pain in the ass to work through all that pages. I never stop halfway through. And seriously, it can never be as good as the first 200 pages (first main chapter) of John dies at the end. Nothing can be that good. Not even Satan Burger which I'll buy next after finishing with von Keyserling's "Waves".
Have you heard about that German politician who faked his PhD thesis? Like Eduard v. Keyserling he's aristocratic. Copied texts from many other authors without quoting. Now got caught which caused a media storm. Idiot claims it was not intentional. How's that even possible? You know what I think happened? He had someone else write it, a ghostwriter. Paid him 40.000 bucks or so for a 400 page thesis. If only I would get 100 Euros per page. Anyway, the ghostwriter maybe didn't even know for whom he was writing and just quickly put together some stuff to cash in. Has probably better things to do. And now the guy is ed: he can't admit someone else wrote it and it was not his own mistake, because that cheating would even be worse. So he must pretend that someones ty work that was just use to make some quick cash from him is his own. lol, what a bite-yourseöf-in-the-ass situation.
Is this post long enough now? Longer than a standard Lira or nefardec blablabla reply? Dunno, but I spend too much time typing. this. If you've read all this up to here you are stupid.
I'll get a hot chocolate now.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Is this post long enough now? Longer than a standard Lira or nefardec blablabla reply? Dunno, but I spend too much time typing. this.
:stongue:
I'm a quick typer, by the way :D
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
It would be more accurate to say religion is CONSISTENT within it's own framework.
In all fairness, it hardly ever is :p
Desiderata
Desiderata
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Correct, the purpose of science isn't to prove, but to disprove and reject the null hypothesis, whatever that maybe in context.
Null terms invalidate the hypothesis in the first place, of course. "God" is quite a null term in science, seeing as how no 2 people can exactly agree on what it is...
quote:
it all depends on the experimentation, if you formulate your Hypotheisis to attempt to disprove human spiritualization by empirical means and show that its simply an issue of insufficient reuptake in the brain causing an overstimulation/ dellusional demeanor through ample neurtransmittters, then so be it. yadeyadeyada.
You can certainly reduce religious phenomenon within humans to all manner of chemical reactions that occur in the brain, but as for the veracity of religious perception... it's simply not scientific to attempt.
quote:
My point is that there is bad science, and good science (That which is compelling, peer reviewed and used as a function of our daily lives).
But religion has all of these - it's compelling in its own, artistic way, as prayer is merely a reflection on art in the first place - ask William Blake. And you can't argue that it doesn't literally compel people!
There's peer review on a scale that the scientific community could only dream of (though it wouldn't, because dreams are clearly irrational delusions, right?). Christianity ushered in the great wave of monotheist, revisionist, unity. It said all people are equal beneath God, and all people are free to worship our way in unity - thus everyone is peers, with God-given free will to review their religious beliefs as they see fit. There are of course a number of caveats encoded into Christianity to thwart review, but the essence is that anyone can do it, because all are equally qualified to do so.
As for being a function of daily life? Theists absolutely believe that God has a direct intervention in their every day lives.
NOW, all of that said...
quote:
There is only bad religion which creates a delusional mind based on false assumptions. Religion in no way beneifits people except by encouraging the notion that in fact ignorance is bliss, which in no way helps society or the progression of humans or any species for that matter. It's lazy, outlandish, manipulative, primitive outdated and outright wrong.
There is absolutely a dark side to religion. But all of it is the very same reptilian kind of folly science is subject to as well. Let me address this with a few more quotes from you...
quote:
There is a reason why fairy tales are for kids, it gives a "rational" easy explanation for an underdeveloped mind. If we want to belittle ourselves than by all means, take the spiritual venture of irrationality and ignorance to live a happy delusional life of bliss. In the end we only have one life to live, personally i would rather live a life of knowledge than in-congruent babble ideally used for manipulating and controling peoplel; sheep, who will, in the end sacrifice themselves in a mass to a poisoned fruit punch to reach salvation in the heavens above. Oh the delusions of grandeur as rick james would put it, I think ill take the scotch instead.
Sure these are tangible things you are describing here. There is no tie between spiritual belief and seeing birds fly. The notion that religion/spiritual belief is needed to postulate and advance is quite absurd.
I really have myself to blame for that last paragraph from you - you were responding to some rather janky wording on my part.
I did not mean to imply that religious thought is required to "advance", especially when it comes to scientific understanding. I am saying that the religious method of granting explanation to phenomena and the scientific drive to grant explanation to the same phenomena comes from the very same place in human beings. This source is where we find our curiosity, our imagination and persistence when it comes to trumping our ignorance - religion will argue that it's the soul, science will say it's all in the brain. But from this very same source comes the will to not only trump ignorance, but to conquer one another, to make off with the substance of others, to think for oneself and only of oneself. Both science and religion have been used as conduits for our avarice, and for every example of religious thought breeding war and hate and greed, there are rather passive movements in science such as Eugenics, there's social manipulation brought about by strict psychology (both use this), and then there's airplanes all over again, dropping larger and larger bombs none of which would have been made possible were it not for science.
You can say that religion breeds ignorance all that you like, but is that ignorance any less of a part of religion than any given, "failed" scientific experiment? Just because a hypothesis fails through experimentation doesn't mean it wasn't scientific or that it even causes ignorance - it's all part and parcel with the process, something religion has as many commonalities with as it does differences. The main difference may very well be that science distills this failure into exclusion, whereas religion tends to wallow in it with the promise of dedication, but neither is particularly immune to second-guessing. It is our evolution -like you mentioned- that has enabled us to project such undesirable, authoritative terms upon either way of understanding, just as it is our evolution that has manifested such reasonings within us in the first place.
But then again there are some religious people out there who deny it's evolution at all - but those people are horrible scientists.
srussell0018
What if god was one of us?
Zyklon_Jay
he would point and laugh at you for liking terrible music and being a funny looking kid.
