This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I blame the American system for churning out people willing to invade other countries on a hunch, but that doesn't mean that I hate it, nor would I level hate on the people who made those decisions either.Well, you aren't me, are you? I have no qualms about hatred as long as it doesn't descend into violence.
Have fun. Don't bother arguing if you're tired of it - it's not worth riling yourself up over something that you don't want to discuss. Utility maximisation would suggest that you're better off not staying involved in the debate if you're sick of it.Just dropping out for tonight, bro.
Post by
Squishalot
So what does God do?
In a religious sense? God created the universe. He's responsible for that, and in a Christian sense, looking after you after you die.
Nothing else.
Just dropping out for tonight, bro.
No worries, see you tomorrow then. Good luck with BT.
Post by
Monday
In a religious sense? God created the universe. He's responsible for that, and in a Christian sense, looking after you after you die.
Nothing else.
Well, if you believe the bible He took a lot more visible notice of the past. He did lots of wonders there etc.
Now he expects humans to look after themselves, with help from Him of course, but not too much.
This isn't a war, this is a discussion, and it would be a straw man to assume that defeating my arguments defeats any other arguments, so don't worry.
I'm not sure your comment fits with his. He's not talking about defeating your arguments, he is talking about how you randomly jump out and insult participants in the thread and use illogical debates without seeing reason.
Post by
TheMediator
So why is he worth worshiping if he doesn't do anything for you? That's what I mean by lack of logic - why do something that you have no evidence will have any effect at all in the slightest? Why is it acceptable to be critical of other things, especially science, and not be critical of religion?
use illogical debates without seeing reason.
I don't see reason? Talk about insults...
Post by
Monday
I don't see reason? Talk about insults...
I'm sorry if I insulted you. Illogical was the wrong word. More like you had to try to prove somebody wrong if they believed in God. No matter what their argument was, or what you said, you had to "prove" them wrong.
So why is he worth worshiping if he doesn't do anything for you? That's what I mean by lack of logic - why do something that you have no evidence will have any effect at all in the slightest?
Why is it acceptable to be critical of other things, especially science, and not be critical of religion?
I find the bolded part funny. Religion is taking a lot more crap then science. Heck, look at this thread.
So why is he worth worshiping if he doesn't do anything for you? That's what I mean by lack of logic - why do something that you have no evidence will have any effect at all in the slightest?
But I do have evidence that He does things for me. However, it is spiritual evidence (what else could it be being connected to God/), you just won't except it. Thus your statement to me is invalid.
Post by
Squishalot
If you can't understand the context in which a statement is made, I don't want to talk to you.
Good, I don't care what you have to say, because you're either full of crap or just totally ignorant of everything you were supposed to learn while getting your degree. I don't understand how someone could be so ass backwards about how things work and supposedly have an understanding of statistics...
I don't see reason? Talk about insults...
What was that about reason, or insults? Or being in a discussion, even?
Why is it acceptable to be critical of other things, especially science, and not be critical of religion?
We've accepted Pythagoras's theorem (argh, did I spell that right?), despite the fact it can't be proven. It slots in nicely with the rest of the mathematical world. The fact that you can measure a right angled triangle's hypotenuse without using the theorem doesn't take away from the fact that it's a generally accepted theory that isn't criticised.
What makes religion so much worse?
Post by
Monday
Pythagoras's theorem (argh, did I spell that right?)
IIRC it is Pythagorean's Theorum.
Post by
TheMediator
I find the bolded part funny. Religion is taking a lot more crap then science. Heck, look at this thread.
On this forum. The thing about science is that a lot of the scientific process involves criticizing itself. The debate about global warming and the recent conflict between meteorologists and climatologists is evidence of that, among a number of other things. The reason that religion appears to be criticized so heavily (or at least from my perspective) is that there are many people who don't examine religion seriously themselves, so they an outside voice is needed to provide a conflicting point of view.
Post by
Squishalot
Pythagoras's theorem (argh, did I spell that right?)
IIRC it is Pythagorean's Theorum.
No, just checked, it's the Pythagorean theorem, being the theorem developed by Pythagoras.
And never mind, it's actually been proven, apparently too. For some reason, I don't recall that being taught in high school.
Post by
Monday
Pythagoras's theorem (argh, did I spell that right?)
IIRC it is Pythagorean's Theorum.
No, just checked, it's the Pythagorean theorem, being the theorem developed by Pythagoras.
Oh. My teacher always added the possessive 'S on the end, so that's why I thought that =P
And I just realized I misspelled Theorem >_<
Post by
Squishalot
Pythagoras's theorem (argh, did I spell that right?)
IIRC it is Pythagorean's Theorum.
No, just checked, it's the Pythagorean theorem, being the theorem developed by Pythagoras.
Oh. My teacher always added the possessive 'S on the end, so that's why I thought that =P
And I just realized I misspelled Theorem >_<
Heh, that's why I thought Pythagoras's theorem, which is how I learned it.
Anyway, seeing as that's a moot point, I'm still waiting for one of the atheists to demonstrate why
quantum mechanics
should be any more or less accepted than religion.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random. That is, in an experiment where all causally relevant parameters are controlled, there will still be some aspects of the outcome which vary randomly. An example of such an experiment is placing a single unstable atom in a controlled environment; it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay; only the probability of decay within a given time can be calculated. Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities. Hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are somehow at work "behind the scenes" determining the outcome in each case.
Post by
TheMediator
Again, how many people kill in the name of quantum mechanics?
Post by
Monday
Again, how many people kill in the name of quantum mechanics?
Not quantum mechanics specifically, but there have been slaughters in the name of science/government of religious people.
Post by
TheMediator
Again, how many people kill in the name of quantum mechanics?
Not quantum mechanics specifically, but there have been slaughters in the name of science/government of religious people.
And that's partially why scientific racism has been phased out - because it was a source of violence, and it had little basis in scientific fact. Again, when quantum mechanics is a source of violence, and when its scientific foundations are torn apart, then you can make the comparison to religion if people still cling to it.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, how many people kill in the name of quantum mechanics?
Again, people kill for oil. Does that make the use of oil any less reasonable?
People kill for all sorts of reasons. The fact that people kill in the name of (edit: specific) religion(s) is a strawman argument over the validity of the religion in the first place. Nobody kills over agnosticism.
Edit: Just to be clear:
Again, when quantum mechanics is a source of violence, and when its scientific foundations are torn apart, then you can make the comparison to religion if people still cling to it.
Your primary issue with religion is the stupidity of people that follow it, not the fact that incites violence, am I correct?
If so, you should also be taking up the stupidity of people who accept quantum randomness. But you don't appear to be ready to.
Edit again (sorry): "People kill in the name of democracy, ergo, a belief in democracy is wrong." That's essentially what your argument against me using quantum mechanics boils down to.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
386234
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
95916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Again, how many people kill in the name of quantum mechanics?
Again, people kill for oil. Does that make the use of oil any less reasonable?
People kill for all sorts of reasons. The fact that people kill in the name of (edit: specific) religion(s) is a strawman argument over the validity of the religion in the first place. Nobody kills over agnosticism.
Edit: Just to be clear:
Again, when quantum mechanics is a source of violence, and when its scientific foundations are torn apart, then you can make the comparison to religion if people still cling to it.
Your primary issue with religion is the stupidity of people that follow it, not the fact that incites violence, am I correct?
If so, you should also be taking up the stupidity of people who accept quantum randomness. But you don't appear to be ready to.
Edit again (sorry): "People kill in the name of democracy, ergo, a belief in democracy is wrong." That's essentially what your argument against me using quantum mechanics boils down to.
But, as said before, there is a huge difference between scientific 'beliefs' and religious 'faiths.' If we were able to disprove quantum randomness, the followers would accept this and move on (eventually.) If somebody disproves something about the church, there would be no changing the faiths of those people.
Post by
Squishalot
But, as said before, there is a huge difference between scientific 'beliefs' and religious 'faiths.' If we were able to disprove quantum randomness, the followers would accept this and move on (eventually.) If somebody disproves something about the church, there would be no changing the faiths of those people.
And this is where I bring up the point that quantum randomness isn't comparable to 'Christianity' or 'Mormonism' or 'Islam', it's comparable to 'theism'.
Skree and Mediator are vehemently objectionable to the idea that someone can believe in a God, however poorly specified, that has no evidential basis. If someone could disprove theism by providing evidence that there isn't a God, I'm sure plenty would 'deconvert'.
All people are really doing by pointing out inconsistencies in Christianity is the equivalent of pointing out minor flaws in the experimental design that demonstrated quantum randomness. None of the inconsistencies or flaws will really take away from the fundamental belief. If you could show the hidden variables and demonstrate empirically how it all worked in a replicable manner, then sure, quantum randomness would be debunked. But likewise, if you could show empirically that there wasn't a God, in a replicable manner, then I'm also pretty sure that most religious people will be floored.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.