Sent from: trim101 (2 ) Sent: 10:30 PM
its more than one mans oppinion mate, cynicism-lol try knowledge mate how can you believe in a big fairy tale which has no fact in it at all?
=============================================
How often have I seen an atheist call religion a fairy tale? Anyway, I apply the balance of power to the sentient and supernatural beings in the universe. We know for certain there are many far from perfect beings known as humans and so to acquire a balance it was necessary for one all perfect being to exist. Furthermore logic triumphs over pointlessness, it would be completely illogical for something to live for no reason and whether or not the reason for human life is to be judged worthy of eternal paradise or not there is SOME purpose to human life besides just reproducing or simply dying.
That's my philosophy on the mattter and I conclude by saying the postmodernists' argument is extremely flawed. I've seen many say oh God dosen't exist He's dead etc but very few actually supply proof (which they seem to be obsessed with to an unhealthy degree) and postmodernism itself states that nothing is definetley true. So how God definetley not exist?

That is an interesting statement, Sioraf: "Logic triumphs over pointlessness". But it doesn't seem to make any sense. What exactly are you trying to say?
It reminds me of a joke.
Q. What's the difference between a duck?
A. One of its legs are both the same.
When did "logic" and "pointlessness" come into conflict? And in what sense did logic triumph?

It happens all the time in military conflict and in civilian life too. In the First World War the armies on the Western Front charged fortified positions with machineguns but after a while it was discovered that the best way to attack a trench was to give more power to the lower ranked officers who were closer to the front and that instead of the entire squad just charging it was a better idea for half of the squad to fire while thew other half advance and as a result much less casualties were taken when assaults were carried out. It was logical to attack using the second method and pointless to use the first method.
I think the civilian examples are obvious.

That is an interesting example. Word's can have different meanings in different contexts. In an argument it is important that interested parties use consistent definitions for key terms; otherwise they can end up talking at cross purposes. You are using the word logical in your war example as a synonym for "effective", and "pointless" as a synonym for "not effective".
If we transplant these synonyms into your original statement "Logic triumphs over pointlessness", we arrive at the statement "effectiveness triumphs over non-effectiveness", which sort of makes sense, but I don't see what bearing it has the question of God's existence.

Raised Presbyterian (mainline Protestant).
Angsty agnostic phase in high school/college.
Now born-again Catholic ;^)

Can you explain further your idea that "we know humans are imperfect and therefore there not only must be a perfect being in god but he must exist?" If I unfairly summarized your statement Sioraf please point it out.

Its a generally illogical statement. Besides most Atheists believe that god does not exist. Note 'believe' is used. Most atheists I know would be open to proof but will assume the logical path of there being nothing without it. The burden of proof lies on those making outrageous claims with no solid foundation not those contesting it...

By that clearly flawed logic we should also assume that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Thor, Odin and Loki exist, dying without a sword in hand sends us to an icy chamber where our corpses are gnawed by a giant snake monster and that Jesus Christ both is and isn't the messiah. Its both paradoxical and ridiculous.

By applying scientific methodology its clear that the appropriate path is to assume that there is nothing without proof. If you believe that there is a god and want me to as well then it is your duty to find that proof .

I think Sioraf was saying this? (Correct me if I am wrong).
1. We exist
2. We must exist for a reason
3. Therefore there is a god
Any questions?

By applying scientific methodology its clear that the appropriate path is to assume that there is nothing without proof. If you believe that there is a god and want me to as well then it is your duty to find that proof .
=============================================
I don't WANT anyone to believe in God, we all have free will of course.
=============================================
By applying scientific methodology
=============================================
Tsk tsk tsk. Science this, that and the other. It only seems ridiculous to you because you are approaching a philosophical question a scientifical way which is an all too common mistake made by atheists. Science can't possibly prove or disprove God's existence, you can't count the molecules of a supernatural being!
=============================================
its clear that the appropriate path is to assume that there is nothing without proof.
=============================================
That's not logic or a method, that's nihilism. I thought you wre approaching this the scientifical way.
=============================================
Sent from: spyman (67 ) Sent: 08:33 AM
I think Sioraf was saying this? (Correct me if I am wrong).
1. We exist
2. We must exist for a reason
3. Therefore there is a god
Any questions?
=============================================
1. We exist and are imperfect
2. Logic triumphs over poitlessness therefore we exist for a reason
3.To balance the imperfectness of humans
Question: Would you agree with one of your fellow atheists in saying that "Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics,even if one wins one is still a retard"?

Thor, Odin and Loki exist,
=============================================
Your logic is even more flawed or else you clearly aren't paying attention, I said there's only one God but the gods you mentioned were all part of polytheistic religions.
=============================================
Well atheists you claim to be the smart ones but as usual I'm not seeing a shred of evdence for God not existing all I'm seeing is the usual "Christian makes statement atheist rubbishes it" type of argument that gets nowhere no matter if you see it on the internet once in one forum or a million times in a thousand forums. Are we going to serious or is this debate just to pass the time?

I think that's funny, but no I don't agree. For me it's not about winning or losing, but exploring ideas. Even crazy ones.

> "in physics a force is whatever that can cause an object with mass
> to accelerate." By that definition gravity would appear to be a force.
Its actually because of a bend in spacetime, thats what general relativity is all about. Using force is a good way to model gravity and it was a good approximation for a long time, but it's actually more like a change in coordinate systems than a force
So when a satellite is in orbit it's actually going in a straight line, but its path through spacetime is bent

It doesnt make a difference to the point being made, but I know if I didn't write it some smart alec would :-P

Yes there's quite a few smart alecs on this site ;)

Sent from: spyman (67 ) Sent: 10:09 AM
I think that's funny, but no I don't agree. For me it's not about winning or losing, but exploring ideas. Even crazy ones.
=============================================
I'd find it funny too if I wasn't trying so hard not to. ;)

I did mention Jesus and he isn't part of a polytheistic religion...

Besides you clearly missed the point. The reasons why people choose to assume that not only is there 'one' god but that he is 'the' god is entirely empty. There is no more philosophical proof that the Abrahamic god is 'real' than the norse and egyptian gods are. By the logic that you are following which is more or less 'something is true until somebody can disprove it' all of what I said is correct. Do you also believe in the monotheistic flying spaghetti monster? Even by philosophical standards your demanding a profound leap of faith for people to just accept a supreme being.

Also, atheists/agnostics are 'the smart ones' as they don't unfailingly follow what others tell them. It should be your duty to prove the outrageous claim not mine to disprove it.

I also don't see why a 'perfect being' (IMO a contradiction in terms) makes more sense than a series of events built on random chance following a few natural laws.

Quote (Caviare): 'An enormous proportion of people I admire are or were humanists.'

My question is: what's a humanist? I would describe any person with an academic background as humanist. I could even decribe myself as a theistic humanist. What should be so hard about that? Do 'we' in modern ages have another definition of this philosophy? Please tell me.


Religion and science

Religion and science have long been placed as contraries in the debate, like rationalism versus belief, evolutionism versus creation. In my opinion, this is false. Science and religion can perfectly combine or life next to eachother. Thereby, religion has absolutely nothing to say about the scientific method. Also, science can say nothing about religion. They should stay in their own field, with science asking questions like: 'how does the world work?' and religion: 'Where do we come from? What is the purpose of life?' The attempts scientists have made to answer questions in the religious field have only led to assumptions like 'The function of religion is social cohesion'. Not only is this logically incorrect, it's also walking in an open door. Ofcourse, religion has social effects... I think many scientists have little knowledge about religion, what it is and how it works. Stay on your own terrain I say.

Besides, how sure is our knowlegde? Can we only accept facts as true when evidence is found? Can you prove love? We can't even be sure of our own senses! Our very own brains cheat us when it comes to knowledge.

The primary 'ideal' of humanist thought is rationality. It very often contrasts with religous beliefs.

The Christian faith centers around the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Who was he? What did he say? What did he do? Christianity has a great story to bring to people, and it's actually a quite trustworthy message. It's easy to put Jesus' ressurection away as a fairytail. However, Christianity claims it's a historical fact. So why has no one succeeded to denounce this fact? The apostle Paul writes about 500 witnesses who have seen Jesus alive and well at different occasions after his death. All verifiable. It is recorded in the gospels that women were the first to claim Jesus was indeed ressurected - why did the Apostles write that down in a time women could not even testify before a court? Well, simply, because it is true. Christianity does the claim, who will disprove it?

This post is not to get you to believe or to convince you. Even when God exists it's possible, by his grace, to deny him. It's still your own choice, as it will ever be.

Just my two cents, sorry for bad english.

Rationality is built upon premises.

I personally question the validity of the bible and the gospels. There are multiple inconsistencies within it and they weren't recorded directly after the events. Especially notable when concerning the alleged ressurection. I was going to go through a few of them but it'll take too long.

This page covers most of my problems with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity

People still seem to assume its my (and anyone with similar beliefs) responsibility to disprove "god's" existence. Without any proof that he exists in the first place there is no need to disprove his existence.

Man, i wish i could hang out with you guys.

Naturalist. I believe everything has a natural explanation. I don't like the term atheist because it presupposes that their is something to negate.

Here is my take. I used to be like DrOct (i also read Tao of Physics, good book). I was fascinated by the plethora of religions. They all seemed to touch on things that rang true, even if only in some small way. I studied philosophy at college and felt similarly. There would always be a multitude of opinions on everything and each would feel somewhat true. Now, some people would conclude that since all things seemed somewhat true, they must all be true for those people and there is no such thing as false (effectively become a subjectivist or relativist). However, i knew this couldn't be true because that idea itself was just one opinion that had an air of truth. So, it must be that all have some parts that are true and some parts that are false. From there, I looked for similarities and contradictions between beliefs. I put them all together and started canceling out contradicting statements. after i was done (this was no simple task, nor was it done quite so deliberately as i have presented, more of a work on the fly.) all that was left were basically science, math, and economics. these were the only principles that could exist without contradicting internally and externally. They could also be used to explain what those airs of truth in philosophy and religion were. things like the theory of relativity could be used to explain so much. When you abstract the principle that mass is energy and energy is mass and all that exists is either energy or mass (dark or otherwise), things actually start to make sense. Taking a utilitarian approach towards knowledge and "moral" (the common definition of morality is fails to make sense) behavior allowed for all airs of truth to be preserved from religions and led to a more comprehensive system that, so far, has been very robust.

earlier it was stated that a rationalist regime would be just as likely to push its beliefs on a population as any other belief system. I agree, but i think the conclusion that this is a bad thing is false. Primarily it assumes that once a rationalist makes up their mind about something it is unchangeable, as with some other beliefs. However this is not the case. a rationalist, by its very definition, must consider all available information. Sure, a rationalist will stick to its belief when no more information is presented to it, but there wouldnt be any reason to. A rational decision is the best decision given a set of information. Only when the data set changes should a rationalist change its mind. So, if you are a dissident citizen in a rationalist regime you could demand your regime to change its mind about something. Then, if the information you presented to the regime was not encompassed by the data used to make the regime's decision, then the regime would have an obligation to examine and incorporate your information into the decision. it may not be the decision you want, but it would incorporate your data. because your data would not necessarily be the same data as the regime had access to. so, the rationalist is not like other regimes you are thinking about because they are open to consideration of new information.

Do you also believe in the monotheistic flying spaghetti monster?
=============================================
That's practically slander! Take it back.
=============================================Also, atheists/agnostics are 'the smart ones' as they don't unfailingly follow what others tell them. It should be your duty to prove the outrageous claim not mine to disprove it.
=============================================
Do you really think that or are you just following the crowd? None of your arguments are either ones I haven't seen thousands of times before or don't involve aggresion and stereotyping they're just the usual ten a penny postmodern stuff. Furthermore it's equally my job to defend my beliefs to defend your lack of them. I repeat, is this going to be the usual crap or are we going to get serious?

it's equally my job to defend my beliefs as it is for you to defend your lack of them I of course meant to say.
=============================================

we can get serious if you want.by the way if you believe in something other than a god you still have beliefs dont you?

Besides, how sure is our knowlegde? Can we only accept facts as true when evidence is found? Can you prove love? We can't even be sure of our own senses! Our very own brains cheat us when it comes to knowledge.
Sent from: Zarathustra (1422 ) Sent: 02:39 PM
Man, i wish i could hang out with you guys.

Naturalist. I believe everything has a natural explanation. I don't like the term atheist because it presupposes that their is something to negate.

Here is my take. I used to be like DrOct (i also read Tao of Physics, good book). I was fascinated by the plethora of religions. They all seemed to touch on things that rang true, even if only in some small way. I studied philosophy at college and felt similarly. There would always be a multitude of opinions on everything and each would feel somewhat true. Now, some people would conclude that since all things seemed somewhat true, they must all be true for those people and there is no such thing as false (effectively become a subjectivist or relativist). However, i knew this couldn't be true because that idea itself was just one opinion that had an air of truth. So, it must be that all have some parts that are true and some parts that are false. From there, I looked for similarities and contradictions between beliefs. I put them all together and started canceling out contradicting statements. after i was done (this was no simple task, nor was it done quite so deliberately as i have presented, more of a work on the fly.) all that was left were basically science, math, and economics. these were the only principles that could exist without contradicting internally and externally. They could also be used to explain what those airs of truth in philosophy and religion were. things like the theory of relativity could be used to explain so much. When you abstract the principle that mass is energy and energy is mass and all that exists is either energy or mass (dark or otherwise), things actually start to make sense. Taking a utilitarian approach towards knowledge and "moral" (the common definition of morality is fails to make sense) behavior allowed for all airs of truth to be preserved from religions and led to a more comprehensive system that, so far, has been very robust. Sent from: Zarathustra (1422 ) Sent: 03:16 PM
earlier it was stated that a rationalist regime would be just as likely to push its beliefs on a population as any other belief system. I agree, but i think the conclusion that this is a bad thing is false. Primarily it assumes that once a rationalist makes up their mind about something it is unchangeable, as with some other beliefs. However this is not the case. a rationalist, by its very definition, must consider all available information. Sure, a rationalist will stick to its belief when no more information is presented to it, but there wouldnt be any reason to. A rational decision is the best decision given a set of information. Only when the data set changes should a rationalist change its mind. So, if you are a dissident citizen in a rationalist regime you could demand your regime to change its mind about something. Then, if the information you presented to the regime was not encompassed by the data used to make the regime's decision, then the regime would have an obligation to examine and incorporate your information into the decision. it may not be the decision you want, but it would incorporate your data. because your data would not necessarily be the same data as the regime had access to. so, the rationalist is not like other regimes you are thinking about because they are open to consideration of new information.
=============================================
Now those are very good points, not based on cynicism or argumentum ad populum but rather on logic of the variety that wasn't invented to hide a fault.

and your response is?

Ignore my above comment, it wasn't personal anyway.
Yes I would like to get serious. Humanism- now there's a humdinger! It's a philosophy based on science or logic, both perhaps. That's far from the same as believing in God. With humanism the definite evidence for and against is equally strong and it's a case of "Is the glass half empty or half full?" (different types of people will say different things but at the end of the day the glass is both) but with God's existence it's either yes or no. Anyway, In my opinion humanism is not a belief because it's founded on logic, proof and the definite truth(but so is misanthropy!) it's just an opinion of the truth and anyway I don't class beliefs as philosophy.

i ahve a quick question sioraf if you were born somewhere else say iran or china or whereever would you be a different religion to the one you are now?

Now we're getting somewhere! I would say most likely yes. After all then I would have different parents.