a challenge to those who feel intelligent

[Adolf Smittler]

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your religious beliefs are accurate?

[jailer3000]

dude dont start w/ this. ur just askin for trouble here. not that i dont agree w/ ur point or nethin. but this is the shit that starts wars in the world scale.

[da haze meister]

yeah man go fuck yourself. we whooped your ass adolph.

[Mary Jane x3]

its all about faith technically speaking thats what makes a religon a religon so its really not a fact of truth or not its the faith that makes it right



Bein stuydin acient religons in History

[AndrewLIKESbud]

What was the point of this thread?

[Adolf Smittler]

actually i was trying to have a debate with those who felt comfortable. what started wars was people demeaning others because they didn't agree with what they were saying. and who's ass did you whoop? were you in WWII (the last "good" war)? you're as bad as the blacks who want to get paid for their ancestors' suffering.

[jailer3000]

tryin to start an argument of religion vs. sci

[jailer3000]

you're as bad as the blacks who want to get paid for their ancestors' suffering.

dude that has nuthin to do w/ nethin. just shut up before u make urself look stupider.

[Mary Jane x3]

damm dude you dont gotta bring race into anything

if you seriously smoke you should be chill bout things

[jailer3000]

thank you mary jane x3. this guy needs a chill pill. or more like a good toke.

[Wright]

Adolf Smittler? Since when was any war a good war..

cannabis.com doesn't need people like you, please leave.

[slpntrx5]

why can't you all fucking chill out? why is everything a constant debate with forum users? what is the fucking point? you're not going to change anyone's opinion. EVER!!!!!!! that's why it's an OPINION, dumbasses! fighting on the internet is like racing in the special olympics. you may win, but you're still retarted.

[da haze meister]

Adolf Smittler? Since when was any war a good war..

cannabis.com doesn't need people like you, please leave.
hear hear
only 30 posts already starting shit on the site
at least when i did it it was accidental
oh btw adolf, if i needed my come back, i woulda wiped it off your mother's chin

[Adolf Smittler]

Adolf Smittler? Since when was any war a good war..

cannabis.com doesn't need people like you, please leave.
when it stops ignorant people like adolf hitler (the greater of two evils).

[Adolf Smittler]

hear hear
only 30 posts already starting shit on the site
at least when i did it it was accidental
oh btw adolf, if i needed my come back, i woulda wiped it off your mother's chin
you're more likely to find it on your boyfriend's hand Proffesor Reacharound.

[da haze meister]

you're more likely to find it on your boyfriend's hand Proffesor Reacharound.

ok bro make sure you get that blow up doll tested before you fuck it again.

[Mary Jane x3]

Not even trying to start anything but hitler really wasnt an idiot and we didnt stop him we or europe wasnt doin to good till hitler tried to attack russia and started a attack on him on both sides

if hitler woulda stayed on track wed all be lil neo nazi's

[Jeff Spicoli]

but hitler really wasnt an idiot
NAW NOT AN IDIOT AT ALL. WAIT A SECOND.... DIDN'T HE KILL MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN?



if hitler woulda stayed on track wed all be lil neo nazi's
Naw, never was going to happen

[P.E.N.G.U.I.N.]

If you believe that Placebos work because it truly is mind over matter, then you've already proved my religion because I believe reality is thought and the only way to change a thought is with another thought.

[Mary Jane x3]

Just cause you dont agree with him doesnt matter i bet you couldnt do what he did

im not sayin im for him or anything strongly against really but you cant be stupid and do all that

tryin to be open minded

[Adolf Smittler]

If you believe that Placebos work because it truly is mind over matter, then you've already proved my religion because I believe reality is thought and the only way to change a thought is with another thought.
that's the only relevant reply i've gotten. also a good one. if that's religion, which i'm not saying it isn't, then maybe not all religions are bad like i've thought since i hit puberty.

[Adolf Smittler]

Just cause you dont agree with him doesnt matter i bet you couldnt do what he did

im not sayin im for him or anything strongly against really but you cant be stupid and do all that

tryin to be open minded
you're exactly right. he was intelligent in a way. on the other hand, however, he was evil, and being evil is pretty stupid.

[Mary Jane x3]

i just try to look at everything from all angles same thing with the religon..

with my so called religion i really dont feel that there are needed guidlines to go by such as christian or jews or whatever

I beleive in a higher power and that religon doesnt need to be see so strict but all religions have there own points

[Adolf Smittler]

i just try to look at everything from all angles same thing with the religon..

with my so called religion i really dont feel that there are needed guidlines to go by such as christian or jews or whatever

I beleive in a higher power and that religon doesnt need to be see so strict but all religions have there own points
i've already grasped this concept, but the closest i've seen to an example before was "i believe in a higher power". this was, in my opinion, almost as ingorant as the other religions i've observed, because they didn't know what this higher power was, or why they believed in it, and therefore literally didn't know what they were talking about.

[Mary Jane x3]

But i mean there really isnt a way of knowing what could be out there

and really the question to ask befor is your religion right? is what is religion?

[Adolf Smittler]

ok bro make sure you get that blow up doll tested before you fuck it again.
you're right. gotta be careful when i leave it at your house.

[Mary Jane x3]

But i mean there really isnt a way of knowing what could be out there

and really the question to ask befor is your religion right?
the question to ask is what is religion?

[Adolf Smittler]

But i mean there really isnt a way of knowing what could be out there

and really the question to ask befor is your religion right? is what is religion?
yeah, it's called the telescope. and religion is one of those words that everybody pretty much knows what it means, but is difficult to define, like art.

[Mary Jane x3]

ya kinda my point

[Jeff Spicoli]

Open minded...hmm... murdered millions of people... hmm.. sorry guy, guess I am not open minded

[Adolf Smittler]

im buddhist and we believe in enlightenment of the mind, body, and soul which I guess means my religion is about bettering yourself and not waiting for a higher power to do it for you....
buddhism is one of the few religions which i have almost no disrespect for. you did, however, leave out the assertion that when one dies they are reincarnated into a human, animal, plant, and whatever else buddhists have a soul. also that one shouldn't seek pleasure or pain, but to have neither. btw, no disrespect. it's a relief to hear people posting relevant replies. you may not believe me, but it's been kinda stressful trying to convince everybody that when i ask for a religious debate i'm not also saying "please harass me, you have nothing better to do".

[Adolf Smittler]

Open minded...hmm... murdered millions of people... hmm.. sorry guy, guess I am not open minded
no, you're not. he made no assertions about anybody's character, only their intelligence.

[Adolf Smittler]

That's what I meant by "enlightenment"....
sorry, i didn't read carefully enough.

[Jeff Spicoli]

no, you're not. he made no assertions about anybody's character, only their intelligence.
wait. You are saying he killed all of those poor jews because they were not intelligent?

[scream]

first off...i would like to say i am not a neo-nazi skinhead.

NAW NOT AN IDIOT AT ALL. WAIT A SECOND.... DIDN'T HE KILL MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN?


but adolf hitler was a genius...one of the most brilliant men when it comes to diplomacy i have ever studied.
just because he used his gift in a negative way does not make him an idiot...a jerk, but not an idiot


Naw, never was going to happen
and if he would not have betrayed russia at the time that he did, he would have taken most of europe and a good part of asia.


that being said, i think hitler was a horrible person.

but back on topic:
how do i know god is real? you ask
mewithoutyou says it best "God is love and love is real..."
i personally am a nondenominational christian and will be untill i see miracles performed through any other name other than jesus.

Adolf Smittler, read the books "Case for a Creator" "Case for a Christ" and "Case for Faith" all 3 of these books take a scientific look at pro-religion.

[sMOkeY bOB]

with my so called religion


how can u call ur self religiuos if its jus a 'so called religion' obviously u have no faith in what u believe in,
:confused:
dont mean to offend
but i dont believe in religion the only thing i believe in is gettin stoned everyday, jus curious what u think of this

[Mary Jane x3]

I was just tryin to state the whole abstract religion idea

[Jeff Spicoli]

eh, I'll call him an idiot if I want. why? because he was. I could care less if he was the smartest fucking person ever to live. He is still an idiot. and scream.. I though you took 7 xanax and hella shots? :D

[Kokujin X]

Well... My religion is based on faith. I mean, I know it's true, but so does every other person of religion... err most at least. Since it's by far the most controversial subject, I'm definatly not going to try and prove my God exists but I do believe so.

[GanjaBob]

Despite what Hitler did He did have a great mind. He was one of the greatest speakers and most influencial men of the 20th century. He was definatly not an idiot his mind was probably far more supirior than your own. Just because he chose to go a certain path with his Mind dose not make him any less intellegent. He could have done great things if he wanted to . And technically he did do great things they just were not very nice.

[PureEvil760]

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your religious beliefs are accurate?
can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your not a moron?

[PureEvil760]

oh yea one more thing hitler was the anti-christ..good luck with that

[Polymirize]

So, childofspirit, is your name a slogan reference then?

What boat are you in?

[altagid]

What the fuck is the matter with all you pinheads? Adolf asks to discuss a perfectly reasonable topic and nearly every response is either insulting , rude or just plain fucking pointless! Like dogs barking - just because. Shame on you!

"Reasonable doubt" is a very high standard few things get established with that kind of certainty, math theorems, physical laws, criminal convictions although I doubt if a jury of you peers ( read 12 morons like you) are up to the job. You'd kinda think that religion, being as the stakes are so high, would also get there - but I have never seen anything that amounts even to "strong evidence". In fact the only kind of evidence at all is that a lot of people are very very sure about their religions.

[intheclouds]

My religious faith is "That God created MJ for our use to help us". My faith is proven every time I smoke it, Because it sure helps me!!:thumbsup:

[altagid]

My religious faith is "That God created MJ for our use to help us". My faith is proven every time I smoke it, Because it sure helps me!!:thumbsup:
A great sentiment but smoking what you believe doesnt amount to proof. I have a Book of Mormon somewhere with onionskin pages - if I use it for rolling papers what does that prove?;)

Since we are all a bunch of stoners and like to live inside our heads, lemme ask a more basic question:

Do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are not just a brain in a vat?

[Reefer Rogue]

No one can really prove that theism or naturalism is correct. There's evidence for both sides, it's what YOU choose to believe.

[Fengzi]

NAW NOT AN IDIOT AT ALL. WAIT A SECOND.... DIDN'T HE KILL MILLIONS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN?


Hitler was definitely not an idiot, more like a genius. An evil psychopath? Yes. But an idiot? No.

Anyhow, back to the question at hand. I basically have no religious beliefs. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Shiva, Mohammed, etc. I was baptized a Catholic and did go to Catholic high school. Neither of my parents were very religious, however. My mother, in fact, was an athiest. As such I was never taught about religion until going to Catholic School and the thing that struck me at that time was that their was no proof. Certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no tangible proof that what is in the Bible is any more factual that what was written in the Lord of the Rings. Makes me wonder who millions would be worshiping if Tolkien were alive 1500 years earlier. People believe it because it was what they were taught by their parents, as their parents taught them, and so on.

Religion does serve a purpose. One thing common to all religions, whether Christian, Muslim, or that of a primitive tribe in central Papua New Guinea, is that it provides a set of rules which generally accepted by society. It also provides an ultimate punishment for those who break the rules. My guess is that religions came about based on myths and stories passed down from generation. Over time "Don't wander off into the woods or the boogyman will eat you" eventually turned into "Go to church every Sunday or you'll burn in hell". Realistically there's no more proof of hell than their is of the boogyman. People are weak minded though, and want something to beleive in, so after hearing it long enough they take it as true.

Take that movie, The Village for example. Not a very good movie I'll admit but the concept does illustrate my point. The people in that village beleived 100%that if they went into the woods, wore the color red, etc. the critters were going to come. Why? Was it real? Certainly not. But they had been taught that by people they trusted so they had no reason to beleive otherwise.

[SensiRide]

Hitler was definitely not an idiot, more like a genius. An evil psychopath? Yes. But an idiot? No.

Anyhow, back to the question at hand. I basically have no religious beliefs. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Shiva, Mohammed, etc. I was baptized a Catholic and did go to Catholic high school. Neither of my parents were very religious, however. My mother, in fact, was an athiest. As such I was never taught about religion until going to Catholic School and the thing that struck me at that time was that their was no proof. Certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. There is absolutely no tangible proof that what is in the Bible is any more factual that what was written in the Lord of the Rings. Makes me wonder who millions would be worshiping if Tolkien were alive 1500 years earlier. People believe it because it was what they were taught by their parents, as their parents taught them, and so on.

Religion does serve a purpose. One thing common to all religions, whether Christian, Muslim, or that of a primitive tribe in central Papua New Guinea, is that it provides a set of rules which generally accepted by society. It also provides an ultimate punishment for those who break the rules. My guess is that religions came about based on myths and stories passed down from generation. Over time "Don't wander off into the woods or the boogyman will eat you" eventually turned into "Go to church every Sunday or you'll burn in hell". Realistically there's no more proof of hell than their is of the boogyman. People are weak minded though, and want something to beleive in, so after hearing it long enough they take it as true.


That is exactly my feelings about religion. I think its an ancient method of controlling the masses.
Saying that, I could be wrong, nobody will know till they die, but what really gets my goat is people preaching their beliefs and refusing to accept they could possibly be wrong.
I mean, my mum is a Muslim and when I was in school, I wasnt allowed to eat bacon because its banned in Islam - I dont think its right to force these kind of things on your kids. Now I eat what I want, and although I have a muslim surname, I'm by no stretch of the imagination, a Muslim. I do, however, like the philosophy of Buddhism...it makes the most sense out of all the religions I have researched

[bosscitywhitey]

i have no belief. do i win?

[slpntrx5]

yes. GO AGNOSTICISM!

[altagid]

No one can really prove that theism or naturalism is correct. There's evidence for both sides, it's what YOU choose to believe.
Would you state some of the evidence for theism?

If there really is evidence for both sides then you just dont know - "choosing to believe" one side is intellectually dishonest IMO


Sensei: When they die, the atheists will only get to find out if they are wrong and the theists will only find out if they are right - otherwise dead is dead and there will be noone knowing anything ;)

[partyguy420]

well... i think so. when i pray to the creator, that i will be able to kill a deer, he grants me with a deer. and when i pray to the creator that i will be able to catch a fish, he gives me the fish. when i ask him to give me berrys he gives me them. and when i ask for cedar bark for my grandma, he gives me the bark for my grandma. so theres my proof that my religion is true.

[EternalEnemy]

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your religious beliefs are accurate?

In fact, i believe i somewhat can.

Now, i myself believe in everlasting existance. I can only offer weak theories on what happens after life, how does the universum work, does karma exist etc..But im very certain that existance is eternal. Of course, the only thing i can be 100% certain of is that i, myself, exist, since i can perceive that by feeling. That should be the ONLY exact truth, not even wheter it lasts forever(which i believe it does, even if all its information and identity vanishes, the self still remains) or not, and i believe many people will agree with me on this one.
Ok, i dont like to blabber too much, so i will explain it briefly why believing that after you die, you just die and dont exist anymore is a very unrealistic way of viewing things:
First of all, as you can easily perceive, nature is built on this strange duality you see. Good and bad, warm and cold, happines and unhappines, order and chaos, man and woman etc...Also, im sure most of you will agree that, both empirically perceiving and philosophically deducting, they seem to be dependant on each other, and one does not exist without the other. Now if you ask yourself the question "do i exist?", you should come to the conclusion "yes" simply because you should feel that you are. It needs no excuses, you feel your conciousness, you are there. You may not be able to prove it to someone else, but you know it yourself. So, there you have the proof of the spiritual side, as in opposite to matter. It is both easy to perceive and easy to deduct that matter is the opposite of this spiritual side of yours, the side that is all the perceptions and feelings.
Now, we know this:
1. Yin and Yang need each other in order to exist, and as long as the other excist, the other does as well.
2.Matter exists
3.Spirit exists

Now, if you know anything about physics, you know that matter is eternal. You can destroy a furniture, it just goes into smaller pieces. You can destroy its atoms, but to be honest, atoms are not the smallest pieces in the universe. There are no smallest pieces, there is only one thing: MASS. So, if matter cannot be demolished into unexistence, why could spirit then? In other words, the so called 'death' is a very VERY unrealistic theory. Its a theory that you suddenly are, and then you arent. That is NOT how the universum works. The human mind has the power to believe that something lasts forever or doesent, in other words may believe there is no end. But in its feebleness, it cannot comprehend if there is no beginning, and the universum, i believe, has no beginning nor end. If not, what was before before there was anything to be?
So, believing that once you see someones body die, you think his/her spiritual side dies too, its similiar to when a caveman without better knowledge thinks that matter can disappear.

Now, i would like to see some christian or atheist unprove my point with other than "no, man, i just believe otherwise, you will know when you see Jesus yourself!" or "no!".

BTW, if someone actually believes what the bible says, then good luck. Historical fact for you: Jesus used to go to bordells, and this is true.
fact # 2: Bible used to have multiple versions, people just picked the most fitting one. They were, of course, not going well together.

[Fengzi]

There's this guy who believes he's a good Catholic. He goes to Church every Sunday. Avoids sinning as much as possible and when he does sin he goes to confession. He reads his bible reguarly and prays every night before he goes to bed.

Every night after his evening prayer he asks "God, I'm a good Catholic and a true believer. I always do my best to uphold the word of the Lord, and teach others about the teaching of Jesus. So, please Lord, just once, let me win the lottery"

The man does this for 20 years and then, finally, one day he says "God, every night I ask the same thing, just one wish I have, to win the lottery. Despite all the good work I've done in your name it's never happened. I no longer believe you exist, for if you did, surely you would have answered my prayer by now. I'll no longer go to Church and no longer worship you. From now on I'm an athiest"

Suddenly there's a deafening clap of thunder, the clouds part and a ray of sun beams down on the mans face, and a deep booming voice says "GO BUY A FUCKING TICKET YOU MORON!"

Just a joke but relevant to the thread

[altagid]

Now, if you know anything about physics, you know that matter is eternal. You can destroy a furniture, it just goes into smaller pieces. You can destroy its atoms, but to be honest, atoms are not the smallest pieces in the universe. There are no smallest pieces, there is only one thing: MASS. So, if matter cannot be demolished into unexistence, why could spirit then?

Well I do know a bit about physics - its my line of work. Quarks and leptons are the fundamental particles

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html

- if you can find one smaller then you are a shoo in for the Nobel and I would love to have your autograph or even a discarded kleenex from you. And mass can indeed be destroyed. For one thing it can be converted into energy and energy back into matter - remember E=MC^2 ?- thats the conversion formula. This is a routine operation in a big accelerator. Also, matter both appears and vanishes spontaneously in the vacuum - its a quantum effect due to the uncertainty principle - empty space foams with evanescent matter. Actually this is the basis of an important result by Hawking who showed that black holes will decay because of this evanesence on the scwarzchild radius. The particles appear in pairs matter and anti matter - sometimes one of the pair is sucked into the black hole before it can recombine with its anti pair and vanish. In this way the black hole slowly bleeds energy and turns "brown"

I dont see how you establish the existence of "spirit" sure you believe that the universe is constructed on a duality and that symmetry strongly suggests to you the existence of a spirit world - but this is all your opinion - the question was on proof

So where are we so far? Not one shred of evidence or proof - just opinions - which are ten a penny

[pixel]

ummmmmm, can ANYONE prove without a reasonable doubt that their religious beliefs are accurate? nope. there's a little concept called FAITH, it goes hand in hand with almost all religions.

[Adolf Smittler]

wait. You are saying he killed all of those poor jews because they were not intelligent?
you are an idiot. the only person regarded was hitler, not his victims.

[Adolf Smittler]

In fact, i believe i somewhat can.

Now, i myself believe in everlasting existance. I can only offer weak theories on what happens after life, how does the universum work, does karma exist etc..But im very certain that existance is eternal. Of course, the only thing i can be 100% certain of is that i, myself, exist, since i can perceive that by feeling. That should be the ONLY exact truth, not even wheter it lasts forever(which i believe it does, even if all its information and identity vanishes, the self still remains) or not, and i believe many people will agree with me on this one.
Ok, i dont like to blabber too much, so i will explain it briefly why believing that after you die, you just die and dont exist anymore is a very unrealistic way of viewing things:
First of all, as you can easily perceive, nature is built on this strange duality you see. Good and bad, warm and cold, happines and unhappines, order and chaos, man and woman etc...Also, im sure most of you will agree that, both empirically perceiving and philosophically deducting, they seem to be dependant on each other, and one does not exist without the other. Now if you ask yourself the question "do i exist?", you should come to the conclusion "yes" simply because you should feel that you are. It needs no excuses, you feel your conciousness, you are there. You may not be able to prove it to someone else, but you know it yourself. So, there you have the proof of the spiritual side, as in opposite to matter. It is both easy to perceive and easy to deduct that matter is the opposite of this spiritual side of yours, the side that is all the perceptions and feelings.
Now, we know this:
1. Yin and Yang need each other in order to exist, and as long as the other excist, the other does as well.
2.Matter exists
3.Spirit exists

Now, if you know anything about physics, you know that matter is eternal. You can destroy a furniture, it just goes into smaller pieces. You can destroy its atoms, but to be honest, atoms are not the smallest pieces in the universe. There are no smallest pieces, there is only one thing: MASS. So, if matter cannot be demolished into unexistence, why could spirit then? In other words, the so called 'death' is a very VERY unrealistic theory. Its a theory that you suddenly are, and then you arent. That is NOT how the universum works. The human mind has the power to believe that something lasts forever or doesent, in other words may believe there is no end. But in its feebleness, it cannot comprehend if there is no beginning, and the universum, i believe, has no beginning nor end. If not, what was before before there was anything to be?
So, believing that once you see someones body die, you think his/her spiritual side dies too, its similiar to when a caveman without better knowledge thinks that matter can disappear.

Now, i would like to see some christian or atheist unprove my point with other than "no, man, i just believe otherwise, you will know when you see Jesus yourself!" or "no!".

BTW, if someone actually believes what the bible says, then good luck. Historical fact for you: Jesus used to go to bordells, and this is true.
fact # 2: Bible used to have multiple versions, people just picked the most fitting one. They were, of course, not going well together.

this duality is a helpful way to explain things but not really a rule in the universe. cold is not a force like heat but an absence of heat. it doesn't really exist at all. just because you can feel something doesn't mean it's there the way you percieve it. gender wasn't evolved for billions of years after life, and after the sun's red giant phase has burned off all other life on earth, the last to die off will be the simple archaebacteria who are resistant to or thrive in extreme conditions. good and evil are complicated illusions based on what is favorable for a species. and though i'm pretty sure there hasn't been anybody that was continuously happy from birth to death, there have certainly been people who never knew happiness. oh, and way to go mr. physicist. you say there is no smallest piece of matter, yet have you ever even heard of a planck length (the smallest possible distance)? the smallest particle can be no smaller than this. matter has an opposite; it's called antimatter shitstick. and i can easily disprove yin and yang with the photon. do you know what an antiphoton is? just a photon. it has no opposite. though, according to the law of preservation of energy and matter, matter is never truly destroyed, it stays roughly the same for a while, then rapidly changes. therefore, if the soul could be proven to exist, souls would be inherited along with the genetics. and most importantly of all, you assume that the mind exists as an entity seperate from the body called a "soul", but it's just a process. how do you explain people whose brains were badly injured and repaired, but lost all memories and aquired personality traits? if you think these things are not part of the soul, then a soul would not be part of the person.

[Adolf Smittler]

well... i think so. when i pray to the creator, that i will be able to kill a deer, he grants me with a deer. and when i pray to the creator that i will be able to catch a fish, he gives me the fish. when i ask him to give me berrys he gives me them. and when i ask for cedar bark for my grandma, he gives me the bark for my grandma. so theres my proof that my religion is true.

the aztecs believed that they had to sacrifice people to persuade the sun god to raise the sun every morning. sure enough, after they sacrificed somebody, the sun rose for days on end. does this prove that their religion is fact? if god descended down to earth and delivered those berries to you in the form of a heavenly pie, that would be real proof. all you have to do to kill a deer is shoot it. all you have to do to get cedar bark is peel it off of a cedar tree.

[altagid]

ummmmmm, can ANYONE prove without a reasonable doubt that their religious beliefs are accurate? nope. there's a little concept called FAITH, it goes hand in hand with almost all religions.

No of course you cant, its an impossible assignment and only fools rise to the bait - as we have seen here. Adolf is taunting you - what else would you expect from Herr Smitler? ;) Never mind beyond a reasonable doubt, how about just strong proof or any fucking proof at all? Hasnt made an appearance yet in this thread.

Faith is a matter of feeling very certain about something even when there is no evidence. Humans are very prone to this and it leads to all kinds of problems - they confuse the strength of their feelings with fact or evidence. Remember Heavans Gate? They sure had faith. How about the suicide bombers ? Men of great conviction. How about GW Bush? God put him here to bring democracy to the middle east! You may feel differently but he is damn sure of it!

Its a funny thing but the brain is quite capable of seeing clearly something that is just logicaly impossible. I like this

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

:)

[EternalEnemy]

- if you can find one smaller then you are a shoo in for the Nobel and I would love to have your autograph or even a discarded kleenex from you.

There has been no proof of anyone reaching the core of matter. Can you say atoms are the smallest pieces in existance? Or the smallest possible ones?


And mass can indeed be destroyed. For one thing it can be converted into energy and energy back into matter

Maybe if i should be more accurate with scientific terms and you should be less meticulous? Ok, doesent matter wheter we call it matter or what. If it is turned into energy, it can be still turned back to matter, like you said and blah blah. But energy, too, is a perceivable existing thing. The duality here is perceivable and unperceivable. Existance of a 'soul' that im speaking of is unperceivable, except for the soul itself(meaning you should realize your own existance).


I dont see how you establish the existence of "spirit" sure you believe that the universe is constructed on a duality and that symmetry strongly suggests to you the existence of a spirit world - but this is all your opinion - the question was on proof

I have no proof if youre an agnostic. If youre not, then my proof lies on sane deduction and perceiving. You should look around and analyze.


this duality is a helpful way to explain things but not really a rule in the universe.

Oh yes it does quite seem to be.


cold is not a force like heat but an absence of heat.

Im very aware of that. So, if there was no absence of heat, the whole idea of absence of heat at all in existance, then we would not have heat at all. There would only be so hot that...we would not really know hotness at all. Its own fullfillness would destroy it. This really needs no further explaining.

[SonEtLumiere]

Religion is strictly something based on faith alone, with no proof available

if its able to be proven in any way using existing data, observation, or experimentation it is no longer religion but what is considered to be science, therefore if you can prove something using either data, observation, or experimentation it is by definition science, and not religion.

[SonEtLumiere]

oh and partyguy 420 this is for you

Hey god i please want a gatorade ????
OH LOOK WHAT DO YOU KNOW I HAVE A GATORADE !!!!!!!
therefore since there is a gatorade here now, my god is real

side note (there already was a gatorade here.... just like how the deer and fish were there before he prayed as well as his grandma's.... cedar bark) by the way partyguy 420 i REALLY hope you were kidding when you said that

[kizazz83]

the aztecs believed that they had to sacrifice people to persuade the sun god to raise the sun every morning. sure enough, after they sacrificed somebody, the sun rose for days on end. does this prove that their religion is fact? if god descended down to earth and delivered those berries to you in the form of a heavenly pie, that would be real proof. all you have to do to kill a deer is shoot it. all you have to do to get cedar bark is peel it off of a cedar tree.
its not as simple as just shooting a deer when your using a bow and is just not as simple as you think it is shooting an animal it requires careful steps careful shots and careful thinking. as for the cedar bark it may be that easy to just peel it off the tree but you have to know when it is the right time to peel it you have to know that the creator gave you the right amount of rain and sunshine to make it usable. and on the berries you have to hope that the creator gives you the right amount of sun and rain for growing conditions to make them sweet and of the right texture. so fuck off thank you very much.

[partyguy420]

im just going to say this, fuck you guys, i belive what i belive, i was taught that if you want to make your hunt successful, you pray to the creator, if you want to make your fishing, berry picking, or bark stripping successful, you pray to the creator.

just like the christians pray to their lord to thank him for the food thats on their table or when they pray that their family wont break apart or stuff like that, that is what i do, i pray to my creator. so fuck you closeminded pricks.

[altagid]

There has been no proof of anyone reaching the core of matter. Can you say atoms are the smallest pieces in existance? Or the smallest possible ones? .

No! I said quarks and leptons are the smallest particles known and that if you can find one smaller this is a very very big deal. Didnt you read Herr Smitlers post? Plancks constant is the granularity of free space - there is no size smaller than that! You are the one who asserted, with out any justification whatsoever, that matter is infinitely divisible - you made the assertion now back it up. Modern Physics, if you know anything about it, (sic) says you are wrong Dead wrong! Neither matter nor energy nor space itself are infinitely divisible. And if you think that the difference between a photon, a quark and say the energy in a gravitational field is just a matter of details then you really have no grasp of physics at all!


Maybe if i should be more accurate with scientific terms please yes! Being meticulous is the very foundation of science - there is no "too meticulous" when you are doing science or using it to support your ideas


But energy, too, is a perceivable existing thing. The duality here is perceivable and unperceivable. Existance of a 'soul' that im speaking of is unperceivable, except for the soul itself(meaning you should realize your own existance).

Yes energy exists and its perceivable. Physics is with you here :) But so what? I am an atheist. I dont have a soul. As for realizing that I exist - frankly I have doubts but thats another debate. But what does this have to do with energy?



I have no proof if youre an agnostic. If youre not, then my proof lies on sane deduction and perceiving. You should look around and analyze.).

No that doesnt wash. Either its proof or it aint. It makes no difference who is listening. You cant depend on a sympathetic ear.

Look around? What the hell do you mean by that? I have worked hard all my life to find out and understand the world I live in. I made a serious study of math and science - I do that stuff for a living and I love it. I have lived in many countries not just visited, lived. - learned to speak 4 languages and read 7 - Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic and Latin among them. (Arabic and Latin are almost rusted shut but they served their purpose) I have read the OT in its original Hebrew (and some Aramaic) because I wanted to go to the source. I cant stand bullshit! I really do think I can say I have "looked around" .

Now my credo? I prefer to spread my cards out for all to see. I am an atheist. There is no god , there is no soul, there is no supernatural and dead is dead. Life is a complicated kind of fire that burns because it can. The purpose of life is to increase entropy. The meaning of life is that life goes on. ( By that I mean biological life - not human existance. ) For a man, the meaning of life is the living of it. The universe doesnt know we exist and would not care if it did.

Now it sounds to me that instead of looking around you have been watching Star Trek. That stuff is just fiction - did you know that? And bad fiction at that too. It's racist bullshit and makes a mockery of physics among other things. My suggestion for you is to do some serious looking around; read a basic college physics book. Sears & Zemansky is a great choice. They have a non calculus version too although IMO physics without calculus is like a dance without music. But its a lot of work - most people just arent upto it. But if you do do it, you will be rewarded with astonishing, beautiful insights . Real insights! The kind that can only be achieved by hard, disciplined work. Not the drivel you hear on Star Trek. (I suspect the script is written by hairdressers) I'd be happy to send you a used copy of S & Z, I have several lying around and I would be happy to tutor you through the entire book and calculus too - quite serious. That is if you are interested in "looking around"



... So, if there was no absence of heat, the whole idea of absence of heat at all in existance, then we would not have heat at all. There would only be so hot that...we would not really know hotness at all. Its own fullfillness would destroy it. This really needs no further explaining.
Hunh? Man puhleeeez what are you smoking and where do I get some - its awesome!

[altagid]

im just going to say this, fuck you guys, i belive what i belive, i was taught .
why? dont you think for yourself? did they teach you "fuck you guys" when people disagree with your position?



that if you want to make your hunt successful, you pray to the creator, if you want to make your fishing, berry picking, or bark stripping successful, you pray to the creator.

just like the christians pray to their lord to thank him for the food thats on their table or when they pray that their family wont break apart or stuff like that, that is what i do, i pray to my creator. so fuck you closeminded pricks.

I have pretty good success in my endeavors and I dont pray, ever! (though I used to) I dont thank god for my food either - yet I eat well every day and have for over 50 years. So the question is, what does all that really do for you other than make you feel right?

Since I abandoned all religious faith my life has been pretty damn good! Materially and emotionally and intellectually. So what does this prove one way or the other? Well one thing - when someone curses you because you dont see things the way he does - thats closed minded;)

[Faultydesign]

Religon is bound by the concept of relative truth; what is true to one is not true to all.

[MasterBaker]

Well if you believe time to be truely infinte
then you could go on to say that any/every possibility (an infinite amount of possibilities) would happen an infinate amount of times through the scope of time
which would lead you to believe that your life/position in time is truely a crapshoot right, everything you see/everything that happens is due to living out that one chance out of infinity.

or would that go in hand in saying that things are fated to be? or that life is a crapshoot. I wonder. But if time is infinate then I guess all im sayin is i dont really see the role a "god" would have...so i guess im just disproving any god-based religion rather than proving anything....

but i guess one could argue that time only exists until you die if they really wanted too...but i still dont see how agod would play out in that either...

dammit i didnt answer shit! just more questions...man im too stoned for this

[Polymirize]

No! I said quarks and leptons are the smallest particles known and that if you can find one smaller this is a very very big deal. Didnt you read Herr Smitlers post? Plancks constant is the granularity of free space - there is no size smaller than that! You are the one who asserted, with out any justification whatsoever, that matter is infinitely divisible - you made the assertion now back it up. Modern Physics, if you know anything about it, (sic) says you are wrong Dead wrong! Neither matter nor energy nor space itself are infinitely divisible. And if you think that the difference between a photon, a quark and say the energy in a gravitational field is just a matter of details then you really have no grasp of physics at all!

I have a legitimate question at this time, and hopefully you'll have good answers since you claim to work in this field. How do you know quarks and leptons are the smallest thing? Can you explain more about plancks constant? what's limiting the size? And how did the constant get derived? I keep hearing about quantum particles violating the laws of physics lately, appearing and disappeaing aparently at random. Possibly something about multiple dimensions? But are you saying we've actually reached a limit? We've hit a boundary?

I have this huge suspicion that time will reveal that you're calling the world flat, or declaring that the sun rotates around the earth.

[Reefer Rogue]

Would you state some of the evidence for theism?

If there really is evidence for both sides then you just dont know - "choosing to believe" one side is intellectually dishonest IMO


Sensei: When they die, the atheists will only get to find out if they are wrong and the theists will only find out if they are right - otherwise dead is dead and there will be noone knowing anything ;)

Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
(By definition of intelligibility)

2. The existence of the universe thus either:
(a) is unintelligible, or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (By definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)

5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

(b) Personal: Explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.) Therefore (hold on to your chair)

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. (ontological arguement)

I'm Agnostic, I can't stand religion. :thumbsup:

[Bone Killah]

That isnt in any way a proof of inteligence,if u think that their is no god than prove it yourself.Nobody makes you believe in god, it is your choice to make,so stop this stupid thread.

[Cronton83]

can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your religious beliefs are accurate?

NOBODY CAN TELL YOU IF THEY'RE RELIGION IS ACCURATE. IF ANYONE KNEW FOR SURE THE RIGHT RELIGION WE'D ALL CONVERT TO IT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I BELIEVE THAT EVERY RELIGION HAS THE SAME MESSAGE. LIVE UR LIFE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AND GOOD MORALS... AND U'LL BE JUST FINE!

Cronton

[homemade]

dude that has nuthin to do w/ nethin. just shut up before u make urself look stupider.

stupider is not a word...it's more stupid:p

[altagid]

I have a legitimate question at this time, and hopefully you'll have good answers since you claim to work in this field. How do you know quarks and leptons are the smallest thing? Can you explain more about plancks constant? what's limiting the size? And how did the constant get derived? I keep hearing about quantum particles violating the laws of physics lately, appearing and disappeaing aparently at random. Possibly something about multiple dimensions? But are you saying we've actually reached a limit? We've hit a boundary?

I have this huge suspicion that time will reveal that you're calling the world flat, or declaring that the sun rotates around the earth.

You are asking good questions but they are big ones and I dont know how to do this succinctly.

We dont know that they are the smallest things in existence - in fact we suspect that there are indeed smaller components and String Theory is the main hope right now. But they are the smallest things that can be experimentally verified with the tools the we have at this time. Mainly thats the big supercolliders - like the one at Fermi Lab or Cern. Unfortunately what we do know is that if we tried to build a super collider large enough and fast enough to produce something smaller than a quark, the collider would be so large it couldnt fit on the planet or even within the solar system. This means that, at present time we have no experimental way to look for things like strings. And when you cant test your theories with an experiment you are no longer doing science - its philosophy or something else - actually its called "bullshit".

The atomic structure of matter was really discovered at the end of the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th. This was really the first confrontation with the granularity of nature. Suddenly water was no longer continously divisible. Further investigations, Bohr, Einstein, began to show that energy itself is lumpy and the size of the smallest lumps are related to Plancks Constant. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html

These ideas, and their implications are the foundations of the Quantum theory of physics and they were considered difficult and surprising at the time and are still considered very difficult today despite the drivel that one hears from Star Trek and solemnly recanted from the mouths of moronic stoners on this site. (I have no real problem with people who are ignorant - every one is ignorant about lots stuff - what bothers me are ignorant people who dont know they are ignorant and make pompous statements like "if you know anything about physics" when they know nothng themselves - nuff ranting . ) Glibly the theory says that energy is granular and its behaviour is always to some extent random. It turns out that if matter is lumpy then so is space because they are intertwined and in consequence space itself is lumpy and again plancks constant is the measure of its granularity.

Because of the uncertainty principle you can never have a clean vacuum. If you did you would know for sure that there are no particles in that region of space and quantum theory says you cant know that much - so it must be that particles are randomly appearing and dissappearing in you "vacuum". On the average you have a vacuum but at any particular time you are likely to have an evanescent matter anti matter pair or two in your vacuum flask. This really bizarre consquence of quantum theory can be experimantaly verified by an effect known as the Casimir effect. The quantum version of the conservation laws says they only apply on the average. IMO soaking up this idea is better than smoking weed

You have more questions but I think I have gone on long enough

[intheclouds]

A great sentiment but smoking what you believe doesnt amount to proof. I have a Book of Mormon somewhere with onionskin pages - if I use it for rolling papers what does that prove?;)


No thats not it. Let me try to explain it a little better..............I believe it was put here to help us. So when I smoke it and it helps me to relax, feel better and just generally a feeling of well being, That proves (to me, maybe not everyone) that it was put here for the purpose of helping us.

PS. I hope this makes better sense. I was feeling no pain when I wrote the 1st statement and when I went back I seen why you said what you did.

[Reefer Rogue]

You are asking good questions but they are big ones and I dont know how to do this succinctly.

We dont know that they are the smallest things in existence - in fact we suspect that there are indeed smaller components and String Theory is the main hope right now. But they are the smallest things that can be experimentally verified with the tools the we have at this time. Mainly thats the big supercolliders - like the one at Fermi Lab or Cern. Unfortunately what we do know is that if we tried to build a super collider large enough and fast enough to produce something smaller than a quark, the collider would be so large it couldnt fit on the planet or even within the solar system. This means that, at present time we have no experimental way to look for things like strings. And when you cant test your theories with an experiment you are no longer doing science - its philosophy or something else - actually its called "bullshit".

The atomic structure of matter was really discovered at the end of the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th. This was really the first confrontation with the granularity of nature. Suddenly water was no longer continously divisible. Further investigations, Bohr, Einstein, began to show that energy itself is lumpy and the size of the smallest lumps are related to Plancks Constant. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html

These ideas, and their implications are the foundations of the Quantum theory of physics and they were considered difficult and surprising at the time and are still considered very difficult today despite the drivel that one hears from Star Trek and solemnly recanted from the mouths of moronic stoners on this site. (I have no real problem with people who are ignorant - every one is ignorant about lots stuff - what bothers me are ignorant people who dont know they are ignorant and make pompous statements like "if you know anything about physics" when they know nothng themselves - nuff ranting . ) Glibly the theory says that energy is granular and its behaviour is always to some extent random. It turns out that if matter is lumpy then so is space because they are intertwined and in consequence space itself is lumpy and again plancks constant is the measure of its granularity.

Because of the uncertainty principle you can never have a clean vacuum. If you did you would know for sure that there are no particles in that region of space and quantum theory says you cant know that much - so it must be that particles are randomly appearing and dissappearing in you "vacuum". On the average you have a vacuum but at any particular time you are likely to have an evanescent matter anti matter pair or two in your vacuum flask. This really bizarre consquence of quantum theory can be experimantaly verified by an effect known as the Casimir effect. The quantum version of the conservation laws says they only apply on the average. IMO soaking up this idea is better than smoking weed

You have more questions but I think I have gone on long enough

You ignored my post. :(

[Adolf Smittler]

Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
(By definition of intelligibility)

2. The existence of the universe thus either:
(a) is unintelligible, or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (By definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)

5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

(b) Personal: Explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.) Therefore (hold on to your chair)

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. (ontological arguement)

I'm Agnostic, I can't stand religion. :thumbsup:

pretty good logic except for one part: the universe is the ONLY thing that exists necessarily. the universe is, by definition, everything. it must exist because nothing can not be part of the universe.

[Adolf Smittler]

a couple of links i hope will clarify my views on religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

[altagid]

Reefer, I know - and I dont mean to be rude - I am pretty busy what with trying to steer around the MOM scammers - may they live to see their children die!, putting my plants under screens and ranting on about fizziks. I owe you an answer

[altagid]

a couple of links i hope will clarify my views on religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

I should have guessed that Herr Smitler was Pastafarian. You know that shit is just load of meatballs?:p

[Polymirize]

when you cant test your theories with an experiment you are no longer doing science - its philosophy or something else - actually its called "bullshit".

We actually prefer the term philosophy, but then again, it's important to realise that labels never really capture their targets anyway. So go ahead and call it bullshit if you want. Here's the part of your logic that I have trouble following: We should only accept what science can verify for us, and at the same time, jumping ahead to think that science explains everything. The great strength of science is that it's free to change its mind whenever data suggests that it should, but that doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt when science claims it has all the answers. I've heard that before, many times throughout history. I don't believe psychics or televangelists either, although I don't know why I'd link you all together.
I guess I think all notions of morality/god/spirit, or whatever you want to call it arise from that space that comes into being when we realise that we'll never KNOW. Because absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. There could be something more fundamental than strings and governed by still deeper natural laws, couldn't there? Averages don't exactly yield absolutes do they? Closer and closer approximation but no limit. Empiricism is a castle made of sand.
I guess it's all bullshit after all.

[Tmar.aLL.DaYmar]

let people beleive whatever stupid crap they want. as long as they arent trying to force their beleifs on you, leave them be.

[Adolf Smittler]

We actually prefer the term philosophy, but then again, it's important to realise that labels never really capture their targets anyway. So go ahead and call it bullshit if you want. Here's the part of your logic that I have trouble following: We should only accept what science can verify for us, and at the same time, jumping ahead to think that science explains everything. The great strength of science is that it's free to change its mind whenever data suggests that it should, but that doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt when science claims it has all the answers. I've heard that before, many times throughout history. I don't believe psychics or televangelists either, although I don't know why I'd link you all together.
I guess I think all notions of morality/god/spirit, or whatever you want to call it arise from that space that comes into being when we realise that we'll never KNOW. Because absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. There could be something more fundamental than strings and governed by still deeper natural laws, couldn't there? Averages don't exactly yield absolutes do they? Closer and closer approximation but no limit. Empiricism is a castle made of sand.
I guess it's all bullshit after all.
if modern science claimed to know everything, they wouldn't still be studying the universe, now would they? i don't see any reason why we couldn't know everything one day. that's not to say that we will, or that it's even likely, but there's no reason to rule it out.

[altagid]

Where did you get this argument? Nothing wrong with quoting but its appropriate to give the source.

This is interesting.


Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
(By definition of intelligibility)

2. The existence of the universe thus either:
(a) is unintelligible, or
(b) has an explanation (from step 1)
Essentially this says that "intelligible" means "has an explanation" - its a definition of terms. I have no issue with this.



3. No rational person should accept 2-a (By definition of rationality)

I cant agree with that - I do agree that one shouldnt give up trying to understand but what law says that human brain is capable of understanding the true nature of the universe? The brain evolved to solve the problems of of early humans - mostly this involved social problems since for humans being a member of society is everything. As any high school student will tell you , the brain is not well adapted to doing math or physics. These habits of thought dont come naturally to us - in fact we havent been able to do them at all until very recently!! Why should the brain of a social ape on some small planet in some godforsake... uh scuse me .. in some remote corner of the cosmos have the necessary tools to comprehend the universe ? We may well be stuck with only being able to understand a small part of it - in fact I am am pretty sure this is the case.



4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)
As I said this is optimistic :)



5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

(b) Personal: Explanations that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

I havent thought carefully about this categorization. By c do you mean irreducable facts? Facts that just cant be explained in terms of other facts? Then you are likely committing the fallacy of "begging the premise". This is a confusing term but it means you have sneakily assumed your conclusion. The argument that follows is just a sleight of rhetoric to distract. Give an example of an "irreducible fact" or an "essential object" the only one that springs to mind is God and it is his very existence that is being debated. There may be no irreducible facts. There may be a never ending chain of discoveries and revelations - this certainly has been our experience to date - why should it end?

Rogue I have to take a break here since my wife wants to smoke - we can take up the rest later if you care. This is enought to be getting on with:rasta:

Interesting!

[altagid]

Also, I apologize for bragging about my credentials earlier. I was a jerk. I am an older guy and I have been an academic all my life. There are many people like me and most of them are a lot smarter. I just lost patience with what I considered to be a case of extreme intellectual laziness. Being an atheist leans towards impatience - you realize there isnt much time. But I was an ass about it. Excuse me.

[altagid]

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

I think the word for this is, if Herr Smitler will pardon me, hutzpah!:D ummm .... whaddya mean "necessarily" ? There are a few possibilities:

If you mean "is it necessarily so that the universe exists?" Then this is a debate about perception - is what you see real? Then who the fuck is asking these questions. Am I just a brain in a vat being fed a videotape and why couldnt I have gotten better writers? Does the self exist or is that just another perception. Thats not what we are after.

So if we suppose that our current universe arose from something else - that our universe has a finite age it is logical to speculate whether it had to be this way. And modern cosmology is that the universe did indeed arise from something else and that the particular nature of our universe including at least some of the physics were the result of random fluctuations in first instants of the its existence.

But wait up - theres at least one more logical possibility that the universe has always existed. Oh! Then there is the possibility that the universe was born in the cataclysmic death of a previous universe - and that could be part of a chain that has no beginning. Like turtles holding up turtles holding up turtles. It need not be homogenous. Perhaps God created the universe and he was created by the occupants of a previous universe who were just trying to get even with the God that had created them. Or perhaps their universe had always existed or perhaps it was made by a turtle! I could go on but I think its clear there are, at least logically, an infinite variety of such possibilities.

There is a more abstract interpretation of the universe in that statement: what is the essential nature of its physical existence. What really is matter, energy, time? After strings whats next? Well if we arrive at some understanding that cant be further reduced then I agree, this is a meta theory, its a theory that explains science and therefore it is NOT science. But why does it have to be that way? Perhaps we will keep peeling away onion layers for ever and weeping all the way. Perhaps its mixed! Some facts are irreducible and some are not!

Sorry for the long stoned ramble but in short there are a lot of possibilities to eliminate and #7 ignores them - a "bifurcation fallacy"


Therefore.....

Never got there;)


uhhh ... I just realized I've had my pants on backwards all day .... dont pay any attention to this crap!:stoned:

[altagid]

So smoking the leaves of my growing plants: Not the best thing to do but we are dry. I get enough of a buzz to get mildly confused - doesnt help my wife much :(

[altagid]

Ok - I got my pants on the right way around and I am thinking a bit more clearly. Yeah - ignore all that blather I wrote. You kick this down at its foundation:

The entire argument depends on offering a rational explanation. But "God created the universe" is not actually an explanation. It,s a story masquerading as an explanation. The point of an explanation is to reduce the amount of mystery and to simplify your understanding. The creation theory doesnt do this - not at all. It simply moves the mysteries to another place and there they are much greater. Immediately one would ask.

Who created God?

And if God was never created but has always been here then why couldnt existence always have been here without ever being created? You havent really made any progress , just swapped one mystery for another

And then you get: Why did he create it? What is his nature? How many of these things are there out there?

These questions usually get deflected with something like "the true nature of God cant be grasped by the human mind" I agree! but wasnt the point of this explanation to provide understanding not mystery? Is this the "rational explanation" that was offered at the start of the proof?

[Polymirize]

These questions usually get deflected with something like "the true nature of God cant be grasped by the human mind" I agree! but wasnt the point of this explanation to provide understanding not mystery? Is this the "rational explanation" that was offered at the start of the proof?

Deflected can be a little harsh. I mean, how do you discuss infinity in finite terms? How do you speak of necessary conditions on the unconditional?
You don't. Of course you'll never "prove" god through reason. it's completely irrational.
The only argument in its favor is that reason (much like science) is based upon our current understanding, so it's not complete.
You mean you want the mystery to be revealed? The answers to be given? The illusion to drop away?
Eventually, you'll have to face your doubts without an answer, but instead only with more questions.

[Reefer Rogue]

The Principle of sufficient reason:

A closely related traditional form of cosmological arguement starts with a philisophical principle known as the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which says, "There must be an explanation (a) for any being, and (b) for any positive fact. Using PSR, a theist can reason,

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent.

Thus,

3. There is a self-existent being.

Because of PSR, step 1 rules out there being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self-existent being is self-explanitory, or necessary.

Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact-that these being exist at all-that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being;thus 2 is true.

And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self-existent, thus there must be a God outside the system of dependent beings who created them.


A traditional Design arguement:

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimate origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (From observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of an intelligent design (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but god. (it's a big job)

Therefore,

5. Probably, there is a god. (from steps 3 and 4)

I'll be back later and write some evidence in favour of Athiesm :stoned:

[altagid]

Deflected can be a little harsh. I mean, how do you discuss infinity in finite terms? How do you speak of necessary conditions on the unconditional?
You don't. Of course you'll never "prove" god through reason. it's completely irrational.
The only argument in its favor is that reason (much like science) is based upon our current understanding, so it's not complete.
You mean you want the mystery to be revealed? The answers to be given? The illusion to drop away?
Eventually, you'll have to face your doubts without an answer, but instead only with more questions.

Firstly this was presented as a proof. It fails. Since the 19th Century - Cantor - Mathematics routinely deals with the infinite. It is an integral part of the calculus for instance.

I agree you cant prove God, not with certainty, not to beyond reasonable doubt, not even to a preponderance of the evidence , but the author of that proof thought he could and Rogue asked for my comments

[altagid]

The Principle of sufficient reason:....

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent....


Disagree - how about turtles under turtles under turtles descending forever - why must there have been a prime turtle? And if there could have been a prime turtle why cant that be the universe itself?

[Adolf Smittler]

The Principle of sufficient reason:

A closely related traditional form of cosmological arguement starts with a philisophical principle known as the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which says, "There must be an explanation (a) for any being, and (b) for any positive fact. Using PSR, a theist can reason,

1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.

2. Not every being can be dependent.

Thus,

3. There is a self-existent being.

Because of PSR, step 1 rules out there being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self-existent being is self-explanitory, or necessary.

Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact-that these being exist at all-that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being;thus 2 is true.

And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self-existent, thus there must be a God outside the system of dependent beings who created them.


A traditional Design arguement:

1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimate origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)

2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (From observation)

Therefore,

3. Probably, the universe is a product of an intelligent design (from steps 1 and 2)

4. No one could design a universe but god. (it's a big job)

Therefore,

5. Probably, there is a god. (from steps 3 and 4)

I'll be back later and write some evidence in favour of Athiesm :stoned:
an object or being not subject to law has not been observed. an object or being not subject to law can not be explained. this leads to the conclusion that god can not exist outside "the system" without being subject to some greater system; by the definition of god, this is not the case. therefore god does not exist.

[altagid]

Yeah that was a driveby and I deserve to get called on it. :o I would justify my statement but right now we are trying to find the real answer to , godtheuniverseandeverything. Just as soon as we've done that, I will explain, promise!

No Science definitely does not have all the answers. It cant even answer most of the questions that it can deal with - as Adolf pointed out - and there are many important topics that it cant even begin to tackle, at least not with what we have on hand. What should I do with my life? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Is Brittany Spears really a no talent cunt?'

However, while it cant answer these things, it can inform the investigation. In this way science is much underused and much underappreciated.

Science is not a set of answers at all. Its method of investigation. It's actually a technique for generating useful questions It is totally new method of thought - only about 500 years old and it is a major advance for human understanding.

I would like to talk a bit scientific thinking, since its so important and there is so much confusion but first godtheuniverseandeverything.

[altagid]

Reefer Rogue, if you quote someone else's work you must give an attribution. You owe it to the guy who wrote it and you owe it to the guy who reads it. Otherwise, the implicit claim is that this is your work. Is it?

[BloodyRedBarron]

When your Dead Your Dead.
Think about it?
If I am retarted am I not in heven?
If have a 12 inch cock can I use it in heven?
If I have a Bag of Weed can I smoke it in heven?
At least in Hell I'll have a light.

[Reefer Rogue]

Reefer Rogue, if you quote someone else's work you must give an attribution. You owe it to the guy who wrote it and you owe it to the guy who reads it. Otherwise, the implicit claim is that this is your work. Is it?

I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;)

The main arguement against Theism: (Premise 1)

1. If there were a God, there would be no evil in the world. (From the concept of God)

2. There is evil in the world. (By observation)

Therefore,

3. There is no God.

Supporting arguement:

A: A morally good being prevents all the evil that he has the power and oppurtunity to prevent. (By definition of goodness)

B. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent all evil. (By definition of omnipotence)

C An omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal being who is the creater of all has the oppurtunity to prevent all evil. (By definition of all ther operative concepts)

D. God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and creator of all else. (By the standard, developed concept of God)

Therefore,

E. If there were a god, there would be no evil in the world. (And this conclusion is identical to premise 1 of the main arguement, which was in need of support.)

[Adolf Smittler]

taken from wikipedia:
If the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.

[altagid]

I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;) [/quote}

And so you did! I am fucking blind. I apologize.

[QUOTE=Reefer Rogue]
If there were a God, there would be no evil in the world. (From the concept of God)

I dont buy that. Who says God is good? Perhaps he is cruel? Perhaps the good in the world is just here to make the evil more painful? Even if God is good, he might be using evil for good purposes. Sort of "tough love" . And then perhaps he doesnt care about us at all. If God exists why should he necessarily be concerned with our existence. Perhaps our status in the universe is on a par with cockroaches? A sort of pest that is hard to suppress completely. Perhaps God just created the universe, as a science experiment and then left it to run its course.

It does seem improbable to me that a Good and caring God could have created the harsh, cruel world we live in - but improbability is only evidence against Gods existence not proof and, before any one jumps on me, this was presented as a proof. :)

This is another Bifurcation Fallacy.

[Reefer Rogue]

I never said it was proof. I just stated evidece for both sides. It's up to every what what we believe. We DO have free will. Would you disagree? :)

[altagid]

... i don't see any reason why we couldn't know everything one day. that's not to say that we will, or that it's even likely, but there's no reason to rule it out.

What do you mean by "know" and "know everything"? Do you think we will ever know all the digits of PI in its decimal expression?

[Adolf Smittler]

What do you mean by "know" and "know everything"? Do you think we will ever know all the digits of PI in its decimal expression?
perhaps a new form of math will be invented to reveal this. we're long overdue for one.

[altagid]

I never said it was proof. I just stated evidece for both sides. It's up to every what what we believe. We DO have free will. Would you disagree? :)

It most definitely is an attempt at a proof or at least a logical argument. An argument is not the same as evidence. Evidence can be a component of an argument but they are not the same thing. In that last example the only evidence IMO is the existence of evil

I have serious doubts about free will. I cant square the idea of free will with that of a universe governed entirely by physical laws. Nor can I find any evidence for free will. I cant think of any way of testing for it either. I have serious doubts even about the existence of a self that could exercise free will. And finally, I am not entirely convinced that I even exist. You might call me a skeptic. :)

[Adolf Smittler]

I never said it was proof. I just stated evidece for both sides. It's up to every what what we believe. We DO have free will. Would you disagree? :)
if god is omniscient, then he knows our choices for a fact in advance. all people must make choices that conform to what god knows, or else he is not omniscient. however, we then do not have free will.

[Adolf Smittler]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[Stedric]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your question. You're asking for someone to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that their religious beliefs are the correct ones. Faith is not a logical operation, there is no proof involved. The whole point of religion is that it is belief without proof.

[Adolf Smittler]

It most definitely is an attempt at a proof or at least a logical argument. An argument is not the same as evidence. Evidence can be a component of an argument but they are not the same thing. In that last example the only evidence IMO is the existence of evil

I have serious doubts about free will. I cant square the idea of free will with that of a universe governed entirely by physical laws. Nor can I find any evidence for free will. I cant think of any way of testing for it either. I have serious doubts even about the existence of a self that could exercise free will. And finally, I am not entirely convinced that I even exist. You might call me a skeptic. :)
this is a good point. if we assume that any cause has one effect, then the universe will proceed in a set way until the end of time. another theory i'm sure you're familiar with is that if we could look at one single moment in the universe, then we could look at all the effects and find the causes, and effectively piece together the history of the universe.

[Adolf Smittler]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your question. You're asking for someone to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that their religious beliefs are the correct ones. Faith is not a logical operation, there is no proof involved. The whole point of religion is that it is belief without proof.
i did not expect somebody to prove their beliefs. the point of this thread was for people to attemt to, so we could argue back and forth. religious faith is without proof or evidence, and therefore, without reason. thus i conclude that to be religion is irrational. however, one can have logical faith, like faith that they will wake up in the morning, or that they can beat super mario bros 3 after years of practicing. these things can not be proven or disproven when they are assumed, but will be so later. god can never be proven, and therefore should not be believed.

[altagid]

perhaps a new form of math will be invented to reveal this. we're long overdue for one.

Yes perhaps. Perhaps all sorts of things. Perhaps in 5 mins Jesus will appear on this forum and bitch slap all the atheists. (Remember Mr "fuck you guys I know what's right" ? )

But the current mathematics says its not possible. We know how to evaluate any digit of PI's dec seq. The problem is that there are an infinite number of digits and we can evaluate them all unless we have an infinite number of people doing it or we have infinite time. And if we do find a way to visit them all where would we store this knowledge - even in its most efficient encoding it would require and infinitely large storehouse. And suppose we could do that - does that mean we "know" the sequence as human beings - I did ask what you mean by "know". And when you are done with the digits of PI there still remains an uncountably infinite number of such sequences . Most of them have no name we just call them irrational numbers - (no these are not numbers that believe in Jesus - these are numbers that cant be written as the ratio of two integers)

I am not sure what you mean about being overdue for a new math? The 20th century was an explosion of mathematical ideas. Many call it the Golden Age of Mathematics - IMO thats premature , like you say there is more to come - but we surely havent been slacking. I can read all the mathematics upto the beginning of the 20th century. I can read most of what was written before ww2 - after that - well I walk into the math section of a university library and many of the math books are completely unintelligible to me. Even though math is my business.

So I ask again what does it mean when we say we "know something" does it mean one person knows it? A small community knows it? Everyone knows it?

We now know that Fermats Last "Theorem" (conjecture actually) is proved. This means I can use this result in my work and build other proof on it. But man I cant read the paper by Weil. Only a handful of people on the planet can. Starting from here I estimate about 5 years of hard study before I can think about reading that proof. That may be optimistic. I have a high opinion of myself. And frankly for much of the human race, its just plain impossible - they dont have the intellectual equipment - so what do they "know?"

[Adolf Smittler]

[QUOTE=Reefer Rogue]I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;) [/quote}

And so you did! I am fucking blind. I apologize.



I dont buy that. Who says God is good? Perhaps he is cruel? Perhaps the good in the world is just here to make the evil more painful? Even if God is good, he might be using evil for good purposes. Sort of "tough love" . And then perhaps he doesnt care about us at all. If God exists why should he necessarily be concerned with our existence. Perhaps our status in the universe is on a par with cockroaches? A sort of pest that is hard to suppress completely. Perhaps God just created the universe, as a science experiment and then left it to run its course.

It does seem improbable to me that a Good and caring God could have created the harsh, cruel world we live in - but improbability is only evidence against Gods existence not proof and, before any one jumps on me, this was presented as a proof. :)

This is another Bifurcation Fallacy.
i believe he was referring specifically to the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic (and maybe rastafari, not sure about those guys) scriptures. if was all these things, he would be able to accomplish all of these goals without evil or suffering. both good and evil are unnecessary, but if god was good he would use only good and not create evil. therefore, if god exists, he is neither all good nor all evil, but finds pleasure in both to some degree.

[Adolf Smittler]

Yes perhaps. Perhaps all sorts of things. Perhaps in 5 mins Jesus will appear on this forum and bitch slap all the atheists. (Remember Mr "fuck you guys I know what's right" ? )

But the current mathematics says its not possible. We know how to evaluate any digit of PI's dec seq. The problem is that there are an infinite number of digits and we can evaluate them all unless we have an infinite number of people doing it or we have infinite time. And if we do find a way to visit them all where would we store this knowledge - even in its most efficient encoding it would require and infinitely large storehouse. And suppose we could do that - does that mean we "know" the sequence as human beings - I did ask what you mean by "know". And when you are done with the digits of PI there still remains an uncountably infinite number of such sequences . Most of them have no name we just call them irrational numbers - (no these are not numbers that believe in Jesus - these are numbers that cant be written as the ratio of two integers)

I am not sure what you mean about being overdue for a new math? The 20th century was an explosion of mathematical ideas. Many call it the Golden Age of Mathematics - IMO thats premature , like you say there is more to come - but we surely havent been slacking. I can read all the mathematics upto the beginning of the 20th century. I can read most of what was written before ww2 - after that - well I walk into the math section of a university library and many of the math books are completely unintelligible to me. Even though math is my business.

So I ask again what does it mean when we say we "know something" does it mean one person knows it? A small community knows it? Everyone knows it?

We now know that Fermats Last "Theorem" (conjecture actually) is proved. This means I can use this result in my work and build other proof on it. But man I cant read the paper by Weil. Only a handful of people on the planet can. Starting from here I estimate about 5 years of hard study before I can think about reading that proof. That may be optimistic. I have a high opinion of myself. And frankly for much of the human race, its just plain impossible - they dont have the intellectual equipment - so what do they "know?"
you'll have to forgive my ignorance, i'm only 16 after all. what i meant by a new "kind" of math is like geometry, algebra, calculus. that may not be how math works so feel free to correct me if that's the case. what i meant by "know" is that society will know it. we know the world is round, though some tribes in Pacific islands don't know that the world isn't all oceans and islands. you are, however, forgetting that even humans will evolve into another species, and that species into another, presumably smarter with each new one. if they inherit all of our knowledge, and their successors inherit everything from the races before them, there's no telling where it could lead. possibly to the calculation of infinity. they won't be the same genetically, but they will have built upon us directly, so they will be a continuation of us IMO. i've even formulated my own theory of infinity (which will probably be discredited in the future, but i was 14 and high, and it still sounds pretty cool): if we assume that there is a smallest possible unit of time and a smallest possible unit of length, the either the number of moments from the beginning to the end of time or the number of points in the universe is equal to the highest number possible. not infinity by definition but by practice. what would be really sweet is if these numbers were exactly the same.

[altagid]

i believe he was referring specifically to the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic (and maybe rastafari, not sure about those guys) scriptures..

Yeah. I knew that but firstly its too big a step, just the existence of a Creator is a very big step - if you can do that then you can start to tackle his nature or qualities. Secondly its just too easy a target. The Omini God that you refer to leads immediately to logical contradictions as you have pointed out somewhere here - and any statement that does that is false - no ifs buts or ands - it false foo!



..... therefore, if god exists, he is neither all good nor all evil, but finds pleasure in both to some degree.
Yeah but dont you suspect he finds a lot more pleasure in evil than in good? I know I do ;)

[Adolf Smittler]

Yeah but dont you suspect he finds a lot more pleasure in evil than in good? I know I do ;)
yes, after seeing the movie "catwoman" and wondering what sort of twisted freak would allow something so atrocious to come into existance.

[TipTIP]

well i got tired of reading after the 4th page so i don't know realy what's been said alllltogether.

here's a quote
"you are saying that you have faith that smoking weed will bring you pleasure.. "

well not to be rude but, that's as stupid as saying "you have faith if you try hard in school you'll do good" NO, if youtry hard in school you'll do good, fuck faith. you don't need FAITH to know smoking weed will bring youp leasure cuz you KNOW it will. so why put FAITH into religions... there's a starwars religion, lord of the rings religion, believing god puts you on the same level as those gullible people. think about it...

look at the human race from a 3rd person, alien-perspective. and look at all these arguments, look at the belief of god. look at all the otehr beliefs. drugs will make you see things like "visions", and those drugs that DO, have been around wayyyy back, past before the bible was written. now how do you know some ancient people ate mushrooms, and had those "visions" of god and so on, then wrote it down. well all these anti-drug people could very well be believing in drug-influenced thoughts. not saying that IS it. but it's just as possible as anything else.

[Adolf Smittler]

well i got tired of reading after the 4th page so i don't know realy what's been said alllltogether.
there's only five pages

[TipTIP]

well...duh. meaning i didn't read the rest of the 4th page and the 5th page.

[Polymirize]

here's a quote
"you are saying that you have faith that smoking weed will bring you pleasure.. "

well not to be rude but, that's as stupid as saying "you have faith if you try hard in school you'll do good" NO, if youtry hard in school you'll do good, fuck faith. you don't need FAITH to know smoking weed will bring youp leasure cuz you KNOW it will. so why put FAITH into religions... there's a starwars religion, lord of the rings religion, believing god puts you on the same level as those gullible people. think about it...


You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc

The form of logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is inescapable. Just remember that we assume all our premises.
Of course you assume smoking weed will have certain effects, you should read something by David Hume.

Structured forms build categorical systems on a floating foundation...

[Adolf Smittler]

we can philosophize all day long about meanings of words and historical examples, but for all intents and purposes, science deals with fact. religion doesn't yielded anything for society. science (and math, her lesbian partner) has yielded, amond other things, computers, lighters, hydroponics, pornography, lasers, space shuttles, can openers, and flight.

[altagid]

You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc...

This is a "straw man". Can you show where someone did that? Put his "faith" in science in the same way that believers put their faith in their religion? I get the feeling, from previous remarks that you have been itching to get this off your chest the entire debate and now you shot your wad prematurely - this the sticky underpants fallacy:D



The form of logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is inescapable. Just remember that we assume all our premises.
Of course you assume smoking weed will have certain effects, you should read something by David Hume.

Structured forms build categorical systems on a floating foundation...
This is an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course all human knowledge is uncertain - thats the human condition - doubt.

ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את פני כי לא יראני האדם וחי

And he (God) said, You cannot see my face - for man shall not see me and live. (2nd book 33)

Moses is asking for certainty - and God is telling him that he cannot have that while he lives.

God goes on to explain that Moses is just going to have to settle for peep of Gods beehind.

Check it out. Its a beautiful moving passage about the doubt that all men must accept.

Just because you have doubt doesnt mean that all bets are equal. Did you ever play poker? Its essentially a game about managing uncertainty - managing it more skillyfully than your opponents. Just because all men men have a weakness does not mean that all men are weak.

Sure you can doubt the very foundations of knowledge, the underpinnings of math and science. And you should! That doesnt mean they are discredited or even that they are the equivalent of all other forms of knowledge.

Ok so you might really be just a brain in a vat. Do you pay your electric bill or not?

[DarkFirer]

ur all dumb cuz god is easily found through meditation and the knowledge that people have gained through meditation. religion is fake and god tries to make every single persons religion seem real cuz he loves us, but in the end, what god is is beyond any thing like a religion, god is truely purely just the root soul of us all that has all the knowledge of everything we see and everything we are.

[Polymirize]

Just because you have doubt doesnt mean that all bets are equal. Did you ever play poker? Its essentially a game about managing uncertainty - managing it more skillyfully than your opponents. Just because all men men have a weakness does not mean that all men are weak.

Sure you can doubt the very foundations of knowledge, the underpinnings of math and science. And you should! That doesnt mean they are discredited or even that they are the equivalent of all other forms of knowledge.

Ok so you might really be just a brain in a vat. Do you pay your electric bill or not?

Absolutely I pay my bills. Even Hume said at the end of the day, I set aside my doubts and go play badmitton with my friends. Odd one Hume. I guess my point being that when people interpret biblical texts literally and assume the have the Truth, in a capital T sort of way please note, they tend to become fundamentalist assholes who think it's ok to bomb people for thinking something else. Obviously any absolute outlook is going to have problems in this sense. Likewise I think anyone who restricts existence to the physical, lacks both inspiration and imagination. Keep an open mind, and don't think that just because your system is empirical you're getting Truth (capital) out of it.

As for religion, I'll just say, contrary to poker, the human weakness in all humans is the groundwork for compassion, not exploitation. I don't rely on causal or quantum connections in order to be a moral person. Whether or not there is a spiritual connection between all people, I behave as if there is. Whether or not my existence is predetermined or not, I behave as if I have freedom. I behave as if I should pay my bills rather than just lounge around in my vat.

What would you do?


ps ~ I don't see it as a straw man. I hardly built it into much, and never represented it as a statement of your views. You could make a case for it being an example of equivocation. But I think it stands. But it's all bullshit to you isn't it? Why should you have to know anything about logical standards when you deal with Science afterall :thumbsup:

[Polymirize]

Sorry, just had to add this:


Can you show where someone did that? Put his "faith" in science in the same way that believers put their faith in their religion?

What do you even mean? I see people putting their faith in science on a daily basis. I do it myself. I'm fucking using a computer to post on the internet right now. Aren't I? Case in point.

Or do you mean cases where things obviously went hidiously wrong? Cases like Hitler and his biological experiments on the Jewish people? Or Chernobyl?

Oh wait, the scientists who do horrible things aren't really scientists. Just like the crusades wasn't really "Christians". At least, not as Christians would like to think of themselves.

As a scientist, are you hoping to discover what's out there? Or are you hoping to prove you already know something?

[altagid]

.... I guess my point being that when people interpret biblical texts literally and assume the have the Truth, in a capital T sort of way please note, they tend to become fundamentalist assholes who think it's ok to bomb people for thinking something else. Obviously any absolute outlook is going to have problems in this sense. Likewise I think anyone who restricts existence to the physical, lacks both inspiration and imagination. Keep an open mind, and don't think that just because your system is empirical you're getting Truth (capital) out of it.
Dogmatism is for fools. Dogma may seem attactive but it can really bite you in the ass , haw haw haw! One should never, ever be dogmatic... uh ... wait a second...

As for Truth with a capital T there isnt much of that in Science. Science is mostly about doubt, the skillful constructive use of doubt - not certainty. Very few important scientific results are "proved". Even the "Law of Gravitation" is just a theory and could, at least in principle be overturned. In fact the hope is that it will!

Just because I dont accept the existence of a spiritual world doesnt mean I closed minded about it Look, what's your position on Unicorns? or Bigfoot? Well mine is this, show me convincing evidence and I will accept their existence but until then, I conduct my life as if those things dont exist. I wont buy leather goods claiming to be unicorn hide . I wont waste my time and money going on a wild BigFoot chase, not on the strength of what we know at this time - this is a skeptical approach. You make the best decision you can based on the facts and tools that you have available - if later you get an opportunity to revise that decision, you jump at it.



.... As for religion, I'll just say, contrary to poker, the human weakness in all humans is the groundwork for compassion, not exploitation. admirable but irrelevant. The point of that example was just to show that uncertainty can be handled intelligently - it does not oblige you to throw up your hands and say - all outcomes are uncertain therefore we have no way of making a decision and going forward.



.... I don't rely on causal or quantum connections in order to be a moral person. Whether or not there is a spiritual connection between all people, I behave as if there is.
I have no idea what this means or how it connects to our discussion.


.... I behave as if I should pay my bills rather than just lounge around in my vat.

What would you do?
Damn, man! I am a brain in a vat. If I dont pay my electric bill they pull the plug on me!


.... ps ~ I don't see it as a straw man. I hardly built it into much, and never represented it as a statement of your views.
this is bullshit - you are shifting your ground!


....
Originally Posted by Polymirize
You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etc... (text accents are mine)

[TipTIP]

polymirize, what does..putting faith into sience have to do with you using your computer to type on these forums? well IF you get on your comp GET on the internet,TYPE on these forums, hell you're using your computer for that. where does faith go into there...? do you guess everytime you hit the power button that the comp will turn on? no duh it'll turn on cuz you KNOW it will turn on, has nothing to do with faith.. but putting faith in something with no prooof, existing "before" dragons existed...how do you explain....anything right about that? but all you live for is to do right things cuz god said so..

[altagid]

What do you even mean? I see people putting their faith in science on a daily basis. I do it myself. I'm fucking using a computer to post on the internet right now. Aren't I? Case in point.
Theres a problem here - the word faith means many different things - I hate using either "faith" or "belief" in these discussions its treacherously slippery. Faith in a working tool is not at all the same thing as religous faith



Or do you mean cases where things obviously went hidiously wrong? Cases like Hitler and his biological experiments on the Jewish people? Or Chernobyl?

Either this is careless or you are very confused about what science is. Firstly what is the connection between Chernobyl and science? What scientific questions were being investigated - other than perhaps how many corners can you cut and for how long. Mengele however might have been real science. I dont know anything about the value of the research in its own terms but certainly persuing scientific inquiry through human vivesection is perfectly valid scientifically. Science it totally amoral like plumbing. There were plumbers who helped run and build the death camps - how does this reflect on plumbing? When your sink is blocked do you call a plumber (hey those guys participated in Auschwitz) or do you call a priest?


You keep firing these bolts at targets that dont exist and I feel as if you are trying to have a discussion with someone who is not here. No one here is proposing blind faith in science or that science can answer all the questions that we need to ask.


Oh wait, the scientists who do horrible things aren't really scientists. Just like the crusades wasn't really "Christians". At least, not as Christians would like to think of themselves.

As a scientist, are you hoping to discover what's out there? Or are you hoping to prove you already know something? Thats a straw man :thumbsup:

Again, science is a method of investigation. It is most effective in the physical world. It has no direct bearing on moral conduct or any of the existential questions that torment man. Its like plumbing - there are good plumbers and there are evil plumbers - so what?

[Polymirize]

My point is you're setting science on a pedestal by saying that science never leads us "wrong".
I agree with you when you say it has absolutely no moral implications, and since the notion of this entire thread was to demonstrate something about religion (or perhaps, as I'm trying to work with here, religious principles), why are we even talking about science again?
I agree (assuming I'm understanding you now, no promises) that science, the verifiable (and more importantly, falsifiable) source of empirical data can't tell us anything about how to live.
And yet, do you know how to live?

In a very real sense, I just want to know... how are you doing?


ps~ I'll agree, that last part is more rhetoric and jibing rather than logical valid, but no, it's still not a strawman argument.
A strawman argument is where I build a position similar to yours but with obvious deficienties and then tear it down. But in order to really get a strawman argument it would still require more of a build up, and probably a lot of "you say/said X". In short, misrepresentation. Have I supplied hard to think about analogies? Yes. Misrepresented your own position? I don't think so...

You should like, learn some philosophy and stuff man...:stoned:

[Polymirize]

polymirize, what does..putting faith into sience have to do with you using your computer to type on these forums? well IF you get on your comp GET on the internet,TYPE on these forums, hell you're using your computer for that. where does faith go into there...? do you guess everytime you hit the power button that the comp will turn on? no duh it'll turn on cuz you KNOW it will turn on, has nothing to do with faith.. but putting faith in something with no prooof, existing "before" dragons existed...how do you explain....anything right about that? but all you live for is to do right things cuz god said so..

How is it you KNOW, that the future will always resemble the past?

How do you KNOW, when you push that button, that your computer will turn on, as opposed to remaining off. Maybe it's broken, maybe its out of power, maybe god just plain hates you.

Are there limits to KNOWLEDGE? and if so, when we go beyond them, what else would we call it other than FAITH? Faith that the future will resemble the past even perhaps?

I guess my main point would just be to get a couple of the people out there to admit that yes, we all take some things on faith, because then this entire development of religion (or perhaps, religiousness? spirituality?) angle becomes merely a matter of degree...

Do you follow all that?

[altagid]

My point is you're setting science on a pedestal by saying that science never leads us "wrong". well if I said that I didnt mean it. I do have a high regard for scientific thought, I do think it is much underappreciated and mistunderstood among the lay public. I do think that in many cases it is by a long shot our best bet at understanding our circumstances? But never lead us wrong - noooo. Science has no way of even knowing when we do have the right answer. There is no cosmic answer book that we can check our results again only observations that either support or contradict our theories. Science is designed to get it wrong and keep improving. But it has no way of telling for sure that you actually are at the end of your quest and there will be no conflicting inexplicable observations in the future. There is no human knowledge that is free from doubt. ".. for no man shall see me and live"



I agree (assuming I'm understanding you now, no promises) that science,...can't tell us anything about how to live.
And yet, do you know how to live?

In a very real sense, I just want to know... how are you doing?


The quick answer is that I muddle through just like everyone else. No one has the manual. I think being a human being is an aburd thing. Absurd in a deep philosophical sense. I used to be a religious fanatic. When I started to get over that in my 30's I realized that I had swallowed lot of bullshit - much of it foisted on me by my very own self. I resolved to cut out the bullshit as much as possible - with mixed success. Bullshit is inescapable and sometimes even necessary. I cultivated a rather blunt, irreverant manner - others call it an "asshole". I believe that every man must find his own reason for living and that this is an intensely private matter - no other man will ever be able to judge or even fully understand this decision - to that extent I am an Existentialist. For me life is about the living of it. I try to figure out what things I really want to and to go after them without worrying whether they are important, appropriate or whether it all amounts to anything.

Being an atheist is a cold and lonely thing in many ways. You must confront the fact of your imminent death without any warm blanket or comfort that religion can offer. Death for an atheist is intensely personal and intensely lonely. But with this comes an exhilerating sense of release and freedom. My life is mine to do with as I wish and as I can.

I have found nothing that even begins to explain the way it feels to be a man and to know that I am a man. But I feel strongly, and this is a scientific idea, that one should not try to dispel mysteries with stories. Its ok not to know even though it is a torment.

[SensiRide]

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

[Polymirize]

The quick answer is that I muddle through just like everyone else. No one has the manual. I think being a human being is an aburd thing. Absurd in a deep philosophical sense. I used to be a religious fanatic. When I started to get over that in my 30's I realized that I had swallowed lot of bullshit - much of it foisted on me by my very own self. I resolved to cut out the bullshit as much as possible - with mixed success. Bullshit is inescapable and sometimes even necessary. I cultivated a rather blunt, irreverant manner - others call it an "asshole". I believe that every man must find his own reason for living and that this is an intensely private matter - no other man will ever be able to judge or even fully understand this decision - to that extent I am an Existentialist. For me life is about the living of it. I try to figure out what things I really want to and to go after them without worrying whether they are important, appropriate or whether it all amounts to anything.

Being an atheist is a cold and lonely thing in many ways. You must confront the fact of your imminent death without any warm blanket or comfort that religion can offer. Death for an atheist is intensely personal and intensely lonely. But with this comes an exhilerating sense of release and freedom. My life is mine to do with as I wish and as I can.

I have found nothing that even begins to explain the way it feels to be a man and to know that I am a man. But I feel strongly, and this is a scientific idea, that one should not try to dispel mysteries with stories. Its ok not to know even though it is a torment.

First off. I think I agree whole-heartedly. Being comfortable over 40 fathoms isn't easy. But it's all there is unless you want to lie to yourself. My own outlook is fairly existentialist as well. I alone have complete creative power over, and complete responsibility for, my own life.
Now here's my follow up question. How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall.

what do you think?

[altagid]

... How can you look into the sea of human faces, knowing full well that they're all facing the same existential abyss, whether they face it openly or not, and not feel empathy and compassion for them? To change your own quote to a slightly more honest variation: "being a Human Being is a cold and lonely thing in many ways". But we're all in this together, some shared human existential experience. thats what makes it existential, afterall. what do you think?

I feel the same way :)

[Polymirize]

so... would that be like, demonstrating religious principles?

Did I just win the thread?

[altagid]

Did I just win the thread?

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

IIRC there have been three main attempts


#1 "Fuck you guys! I know whats right"

I kinda liked this guy - if you think about it, it has a certain consistency. Its mainly about the strength of private knowledge. Anyway at least he didnt waste a lot of time here - :D

#2 Attempts at direct proofs

These all have to make a lot of very questionable assumptions, assumptions that really cant be glossed over with "we can all agree that". They dont get off the ground

#3 We dont really know much so how should we go about things?

IMO this is the most productive approach, if done honestly and intelligently - its not a license for fuzzy sentimental thinking. But, the main challenge of this thread is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" (I would prefer "prove to a strong certainty" or even just "to a preponderance of the evidence" but #3 basically throws in the towel on all those and says "yer right, its impossible. Now what?"

[PottyMcSmoke]

This thread is a head fuck when you're high :stoned:

lol i was trying to fish through the thesaurus enhanced bullshit, but after a couple of minutes my eyes just lost focus so I said fuck it and decided to tack on a post for myself

(why should they get all the fun:dance: )

[Polymirize]

Hehe - its boring when people agree - war can be much more productive than peace ;)

Maybe, but only if you can pay the high cost of resources. I don't think we'll have them for much longer in the manner that we do now, assuming things continue to go the way they are going. And when we consider the human cost of it. Then no, we find we've never been able to afford it really.
War sets resources against resources. Money is spent against money. Weapons used against weapons. Rather than peacefully contributing resources. At least there would be less waste.

Second: I agree about direct proof. I've spent posts agreeing. So what is it about science or religion or ontology or language that's different from "so we all agree that X"?

I don't consider any of this to be wasting time because it gives me the chance to ponder it all. I don't expect to derive any answer but there's some quality to the questioning itself that feels like stretching. It's healthy. Open minds are a good thing.
Is it a productive approach? Does it produce anything real that could be measured or calculated? No. Consciousness is still free of the tyranny of physicalism. And can we know it? Perhaps we can only approach its unknowable-ness

For many philosophers, morality is the derived from Pure Reason. A self-examination, free of empirical impressions.

Do you need to count objects to know that 2+3=5?
Are you aware that a triangle's angles will equal 180 degrees without having to measure them?
The necessity of a triangles properties do not demonstrate the necessity of triangles, but you might find it interesting to think about...

[heads all empty]

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

There you have it

[TipTIP]

lol, hmmm? if the power's out, then the powers out, i KNOW it won't turn on if the powers out or the comps broken, but knowing the comp isn't, or the powers not out, it will turn on. fact, not some sort of miracle that hey everytime i seem to push this button, the comp turns on? that's a work of god! no it's science dimwit. common sense, use the other side of your brain.

[PureEvil760]

I can prove my religeon beyond a reasonable doubt..first get a gun..aim from temple to temple..and pull the trigger.. there! proven!

[Polymirize]

lol, hmmm? if the power's out, then the powers out, i KNOW it won't turn on if the powers out or the comps broken, but knowing the comp isn't, or the powers not out, it will turn on. fact, not some sort of miracle that hey everytime i seem to push this button, the comp turns on? that's a work of god! no it's science dimwit. common sense, use the other side of your brain.

I'm going to ask a question with the most sincere and honest tone I can, and I apoligize if it comes out mildly offensive, but...

are you like 17 years old or are you just stupid?

Monkeys can flip switches... Can you reason?

[Adolf Smittler]

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

There you have it

pretty good but:
1. a perfect being can not be conceived. a perfect being is omnipotent, but omnipotence is logically impossible (does an omnipotent being have the power to become more powerful? either way, they aren't omnipotent). we can't concieve how a being would complete an insurmountable task, therefore we can't conceive such a being.
2. why must perfection exist in reality? a perfect square in thought wouldn't become more perfect if such an object could be created in reality.

[PureEvil760]

Every single human is perfect in god's eyes even serial killers, rapists ect.

[Adolf Smittler]

Every single human is perfect in god's eyes even serial killers, rapists ect.
he just doesn't want to admit his mistakes.

[IanCurtisWishlist]

My personal opinions:

there is no god but yourself.

if you are suffering, you don't hit your knees and ask for divine guidance and expect a miracle out of nowhere-- we have our own minds and are capable of working out our problems. it's the same situation in any case. whether you hit your knees in prayer or sit in a lotus posture in silent meditation, the motive is always the same--to gain awareness, to gain insight. for guidance, for a power "outside of yourself" . i'm a buddhist in philosophy, because I recognize that in order to gain this "outside insight", i do not need the help of any god. there is no god but yourself. even in a judeo-christian point of view, the idea is that one must first search for god to gain insight (the phrase "jesus is knocking at your door , let him in to dine with you" comes to mind, making a reference to the fact that jesus is trying to come into your life, but first you must seek it). it's not the work of god that is changing your life in religion, people. it's the mere fact that you are seeking to make a positive and insightful change in your own life. that's the enlightenment. while one might compare this to being "in the holy spirit" from a christian standpoint, the feeling which most religions offer people is very possibly the same.

if you think about it, buddhism offers enlightenment. islam offers submission. christianity offers salvation. all of these religions claim to save your life in one form of another. this is what unites religions-the fact that we are searching for something outside of ourself, be it a personal relationship with god or just our own personal insight. To a greater extent, a muslim may feel as "spiritual" (i.e. tranquil, happy, joyous) with his religion , as a christian might with his. the general idea is that all religions give us, the HUMAN, the same "feeling", the same experience, and this feeling is the result of chemicals being released in our brains (endorphins).

in my opinion, spiritualilty in general is very similar among all religions--the only difference is in religious doctrine/creed. however i do believe that the actual feeling that accompanies spirituality is the same. whether you are meditating, praying to Allah, sitting with a guru, or reading scripture from the bible, religion does the same things for people in general-- it gives a sense of well-being and comfort, joy. perhaps that's why karl marx called religion the "opiate of the masses".

in a sense we could compare spirituality to a natural drug, in the sense that when we are feeling "spiritual", what we are really experiencing is endorphins being released in the brain ( which is necessary to produce this feeling, as any feeling one experiences is the result of certain chemical reactions occuring in the brain).

to put it in another sense, we could say that religion makes us feel good. it gives us peace of mind, tranquility, reassurance--it helps us affirm our self. it helps us feel well. so does heroin :) interestingly, this is the result of chemical processes in the brain--similar to how a drug might work on the brain. The universalness of spirituality is what unites all religions--we all feel the same "high" on religion, if you will--a high of well-being and happyness, assurance.... "holyness".

when one takes a drug like heroin, a feeling of well-being comes over the person. and this is because endorphins are being released in the brain. and when christians are feeling the holy spirit, obviously endorphins are being released in their brains-- so much that it is enough to cause laughing, crying, etc. i observe this and conclude that these people could only be "high on the holy spirit", or otherwise "high off their religion". Indeed, the holy spirit could very well be re-created as a chemical compound, a drug if you will. when ingested, this "holy spirit" drug might produce effects similar to those of a religious experience. But i'm not a pharmacologist, and i'm not a psychiatrist, nor a neurologist. I'm just pointing out the fact that every emotion we feel is the result of chemical change in the brain, so perhaps with this knowledge , a drug could be created which would "simulate" the effects of spirituality, or re-create the religious experience because every emotion we feel is a result of chemical change in the mind. thus after ingesting this drug, one might experience or re-live a religious experience. more than likely though, it would just throw you into psychosis.

enough deep thoughs now, and off i go to smoke my bowl, pop my melatonin and sleep :) think about it.

[IanCurtisWishlist]

ahhh fuck i just wrote a fucking essay for this , and the fucking browser FUCKED IT UP. i hate computers they are the worst fucking thing since the television!! FUCK.