Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Final Fantasy Dreams

RegisterLoginControl PanelMembers

FFDreams is expanding. HTTP calls replaced by HTTPS January 7, 2020.

runboard.com       Signup
Login:   

Page  1  2  3  4 ... 6  7  8 

 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


If the designer argument was weak, it would have been smashed to pieces by philosophers worldwide but it hasn’t. Scientist believer in the idea of the designer because the universe looks designed. I remember that the creation of the universe is like a tornado ripping apart a jumbo-jet and then putting back together again. The universe is pretty much perfect because if it wasn’t, then life couldn’t be supported. The probability of the universe, co-insides with the probability of there being a God. You choose.
Ireanus(think that is right) was a Greek dude, around the time of Jesus’ death. He said that the universe was created by God imperfect and that we all evolve to become perfect. There is evil in the world because without it, we wouldn’t be able to advance and evolve. A guy 2000 years ago saying hat evolution did happen, wow!
The Church takes up St Augustine’s view on God. I think Ireanus’ view is better because it works with evolution and gets around the problem of evil.

The only reason I said about empirical evidence is one member above was talking about empirical to prove/disprove religion. I never said there was any empirical evidence to suggest religion is right. I did use the idea of the afterlife and thousands of institutes set to prove it and they have done a rather good joy, hence the New Materialist Christian movement. Some Materialist now believer in an afterlife and have come up with arguments for it… imagine that(sorry going on about the afterlife, only reasonable example I can think of).

The number of believers is climbing. Many people don’t need to practice their faith everyday or let it get in the way of their lives but they still have beliefs. I have beliefs but I don’t practice them nor do I let it control my life, but if asked I would admit and so would most people. Atheist numbers are not climbing(despite what they say), Atheist make up 2 or 3% of the worlds population. One Atheist professor said that he believed that atheism would not survive in 50 years and didn’t Soren Kierkegaard say that in the end that all people would believe in God. Think about it.

Right, you can see the affects of Politics not an actual material thing called politics. There is not a material thing called democracy but I can see its affects. If you point at the things you mentioned(Taxes, schools) and said ‘that is politics’, I would look at you and say that is money or a school. You can say that politics made it but it is not politics. So, if you base everything on empirical evidence then politics doesn’t exist because I can’t see its material form but it does exists… as a concept. It is hard to prove the practise of religion, many have proved stuff but science is doing its best to ignore it because science is unwilling to change there views on reality.

There! I have taken up your questions and my answers are nothing short of brilliant.
7/Jun/07, 9:41 am Link 2 this post  
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
If the designer argument was weak, it would have been smashed to pieces by philosophers worldwide but it hasn’t. Scientist believer in the idea of the designer because the universe looks designed. I remember that the creation of the universe is like a tornado ripping apart a jumbo-jet and then putting back together again. The universe is pretty much perfect because if it wasn’t, then life couldn’t be supported. The probability of the universe, co-insides with the probability of there being a God. You choose.



--It has been smashed to pieces, and I already did so without even scratching the surface. Read some Neitzshe, Sartre and a good many other philosophers. You haven't even come close to reading up on the subject and you didn't even specifically address a single point I brought up. The tornado ripping apart a jumbo jet scenario is covered under the probability clause. It only has to happen once in an infinite amount of attempts. Again, your suggestion of the jumbo jet assumes that the Universe is already perfect. I gave you an example of what shows that the Universe, is in fact, not perfect. Why do things uselessly evolve and die painful deaths? that, to me, shows the Universe is not perfect.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Ireanus(think that is right) was a Greek dude, around the time of Jesus’ death. He said that the universe was created by God imperfect and that we all evolve to become perfect. There is evil in the world because without it, we wouldn’t be able to advance and evolve. A guy 2000 years ago saying hat evolution did happen, wow!
The Church takes up St Augustine’s view on God. I think Ireanus’ view is better because it works with evolution and gets around the problem of evil.



--There are lots of ideas put forth by the Greeks that allude to modern scientific thought in incomplete, abstract ways, that then get misinterpreted and people believe they have said the same thing that modern scientific thought does. Herocles said the world was created of atoms, by which he said there are building blocks which cannot be broken down, but he did not mean atoms as we think of them now. The word "atom" was adopted from Herocles' thought. The idea of the human advancing to become better actually predated the Greeks and has nothing to do with evolution in the scientific sense. The concept of evolving to a state higher than we are at birth has been around for thousands of years. Again, the world evolution was taken from philosophy. And again, your arguement is weak and shows a complete lack of understanding and depth of knowledge on the subject.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
The only reason I said about empirical evidence is one member above was talking about empirical to prove/disprove religion. I never said there was any empirical evidence to suggest religion is right. I did use the idea of the afterlife and thousands of institutes set to prove it and they have done a rather good joy, hence the New Materialist Christian movement. Some Materialist now believer in an afterlife and have come up with arguments for it… imagine that(sorry going on about the afterlife, only reasonable example I can think of).



--People trying to empiracily prove the afterlife is nothing new. Read Plato's Phearus for an attempt. The simple fact is that, scientifically speaking, there is no empirical data to support the idea. Religionists' making such claims is what annoys scientists, including Christain scientists and scientists of other faiths that can unify the two together. Science deals with the material world; religion does not. Blurring the line does nothing good for anyone invovled. Similarly, scientists claiming to disprove God and the afterlife, are also crossing the line. Emprical data says nothing about spiritual claims -- there is no empirical evidence to use to support, or disprove, the idea. If one takes purely an empirical view, then one can only say that nothing suggests such an existence, but one can counter by saying that the empiricist is superficially narrowing the entirety of existence.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
The number of believers is climbing. Many people don’t need to practice their faith everyday or let it get in the way of their lives but they still have beliefs. I have beliefs but I don’t practice them nor do I let it control my life, but if asked I would admit and so would most people. Atheist numbers are not climbing(despite what they say), Atheist make up 2 or 3% of the worlds population. One Atheist professor said that he believed that atheism would not survive in 50 years and didn’t Soren Kierkegaard say that in the end that all people would believe in God. Think about it.



--Dude, you are seriousely misinformed. You proved exactly why religion is not growing, but rather dying. Religious beliefs should play a central role in one's life, and that, exactly, is one of the reasons Kierkegaard wrote "The Attack on Christiandom," a series of articles published attacking the state of Christianity in his day. Kierkegaard was deeply Christian and decried the state of belief in his lifetime. People who only give face value and say they are an adherent to a religious belief, without practicing it, was one of his chief complaints. Just becuase you say on a piece of paper that you are a Christian, does not make you a Christian. Just because you will say that you are a Christian when asked, does not mean that you truly are. How you act, how you think and what you do, tells what you truly believe and what you truly value. If you do not practice Christian tenets in your life, then you are not a Christian, but rather, an unbeliever. How people act in this day and age, points to unbelief through and through.

--Secondly, claiming "an athiest professor said" is not evidence. I could just as easily say, "a christian pastor is afraid that his denomination will die out within 50 years" and have as much credibility as you do now. Particularly given that you dropped Kierkegaard as a name, but know absolutely nothing about his writings, which I honestly find disgusting. I reviewed Kierkegaard's work as my Senior Thesis in Philosophy, along with Martin Buber, and in fact, used to have some Kierkegaardian quotes in my signature.

--Thirdly, here is a source that states that religious identity is declining in the USA, published by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research by two leading PhDs in Religious Studies, Sid Groeneman & Gary Tobin. http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/Religion_Report2.pdf
If you would like to debate, at least have some sources.
A very important passage:
"While the data about changes in religious
belief and commitment reviewed above reveal
some evidence of change, mostly in the 1960s
and 1970s, they also show signs of impressive
stability and virtually no noticeable movements
since the early 1990s. The picture is
different for the tendency to identify oneself
religiously, which has declined significantly in
recent years after many decades where the
proportion choosing a religion was high and
unchanging. As we will show, Americans
today are more likely than ever before to
answer “None” when asked in surveys to
specify their religion or religious preference."
Note that this was published in 2004, I doubt that there has been any significant change that can be identified reliably since then.

And following that:
"Comparing the results reveals a sharp
increase in the number of United States adults
specifying “no religion” or “none” (or atheist,
agnostic, Humanist, Ethical Culture, or secular)
21 in response to the open-ended question,
“What is your religion (if any)?” The proportion
giving these responses rose from 8.2% to
14.1%. If respondents refusing to answer are
excluded from the base of the percentages, the
recalculated figures become 8.4% (1990) and
15.0% (2001)."

--I do believe that you are bold faced lying in your claim that religious adherence is rising. The facts seem to show that you don't have a leg to stand on.





---

7/Jun/07, 2:17 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
Right, you can see the affects of Politics not an actual material thing called politics. There is not a material thing called democracy but I can see its affects. If you point at the things you mentioned(Taxes, schools) and said ‘that is politics’, I would look at you and say that is money or a school. You can say that politics made it but it is not politics. So, if you base everything on empirical evidence then politics doesn’t exist because I can’t see its material form but it does exists… as a concept. It is hard to prove the practise of religion, many have proved stuff but science is doing its best to ignore it because science is unwilling to change there views on reality.



--YOu are again not quite right. You can find the laws that specify the reason why such and such a tax is levied, and the laws that state history, science, English , and math, etc, have to be taught, and the ways in which they must be taught. Laws dictate which textbooks are allowed in schools, the dress codes, the language allowed to be used, and the ideas that cannot be taught, which is particularly true in history. The word, Politics, was coined for a reason, that reason being that it is a very important, and central tenement, to the human condition. YOu can deny that politics is not a tangible force, but you only prove your naivete, just as claiming that religion is not a tangible force. In fact, the power of religion is precisely why we are debating right now.
The thing that you are missing is that there is a wealth of empirical evidence that shows that politics exists. The paper trail is there, the people taking positions in politics is there, you can turn on the TV and watch the debates. The philosophies surrounding the policies being enacted are available for people to read, review, criticize and debate. Religion, in that sense, is the same. The difference is that religion often makes empirical claims that it has no data to support. You are again, confusing things.

quote:

General Queeaqueg wrote:
There! I have taken up your questions and my answers are nothing short of brilliant.



On the contrary, you answers are incredibly naive and uninformed.

---

7/Jun/07, 2:17 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


None of those philosophers have smashed it to pieces, otherwise no one would believe in it. When Neitzshe said that ‘god is dead and we have killed him’ doesn’t mean we are all losing are faith but that we have warped the idea of God to the extent that we are not sure who is and we will replace him(leading the ‘Superman’ idea). Sartre was a twat, end of.
Hume and Kant with arguments against and theirs are pretty bad. You haven’t told me anything which can destroy the argument, no one can and that is why people believe in it.

You clearly have never read anything of Ireanus, he said that the universe was created imperfect and we evolved. I know there are better definitions of Atoms but they are quite simple the building blokes and what we are made of. I never thought of Atoms as anything else.

I know it is nothing new but it was the only example I could think of. Why can’t science and religion get along? I can’t see any reason. You say that science deals with the Material world, well some scientist say that the afterlife and God are part of the material world. I can’t answer God (because haven’t seen him) but with the growing of Near-death, reincarnation stories and bed-side phenomena plus the growing parapsychology units, I simply just flog it off as something stupid or not real. You say it yourself that we are not perfect beings, so why do we continue to pretend that we know everything about our reality?

What?! I have heard plenty of people saying ‘I do believe in God but I am not a Christian’. It is possible to believe in a higher power and not conform to the religion(s) based around it. I have a friend who believes in God but does not go to church or anything like that. Putting down ‘Christian’ is the simple answer. Kierkegaard always believed in God, I know he didn’t admire of Christianity but he was committed to his beliefes(not to the person he was engaged to). One of his final recommendations was that the best decisions we can make is one which we are dependent on God. Religion is like taking a ‘Leap of Faith’. I don’t really like Kierkegaard anyway, who dies outside a bank?
I can’t remember the scientist atheist name but his quote stuck with me.

Don’t worry, I can dish results out. I really like this one:
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

Most Communist nations say they have the atheist but it is well know that they might be making up those Stats because they don’t like religion. The underground church in Russia and especially in Chine is really booming but they would not appear on the reports because they are hiding from the government. I know in my happy country(UK), we have 40 million Christians and our 60 million strong. Doesn’t mean we have 20 million atheist, though. I have talked to philosophers, theologians and atheists, they all agree that number of believers are growing. The same could be said for non-believers but no matter what you say, there are more believers then non-believers. Put it simple I say about 5.5 Billion people follow religion and 0.5 are non-believers.

There is no thing called ‘Politics’, just like there is no thing called ‘Democracy’. I know they exist because I see their affects everyday but there is no material thing. I guess you can write ‘politics’ on a bit of paper and say that is it.

Man, I thought you were alright but I have had stronger opposition from my sister. I don’t believe in God but I don’t deny that Religion in the world is incredibly strong and I have seen more people turn to religion everyday.
7/Jun/07, 4:30 pm Link 2 this post  
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


   Of course the one day I actually have crap to do this happens. Anyway let me jump in right here rather than starting at the beginning, for I think Cleamatra has done an admirable job of refuting.


quote:

None of those philosophers have smashed it to pieces, otherwise no one would believe in it. When Neitzshe said that ‘god is dead and we have killed him’ doesn’t mean we are all losing are faith but that we have warped the idea of God to the extent that we are not sure who is and we will replace him(leading the ‘Superman’ idea). Sartre was a twat, end of.
Hume and Kant with arguments against and theirs are pretty bad. You haven’t told me anything which can destroy the argument, no one can and that is why people believe in it.




   First off, calling Sartre a twat and simply ending your argument right there reflects your dismal knowledge of this subject.
    One thing that really bugs me is that you seem to believe that since science can't fully explain the many mysteries of this universe, it must therefore have been caused by a creator. Where is the evidence for this creator then? From what religion can we draw empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods??? I honestly can't think of a single one. If we have no evidence for this creator then how can you purport that there must be one???

Now


quote:

I know it is nothing new but it was the only example I could think of. Why can’t science and religion get along? I can’t see any reason. You say that science deals with the Material world, well some scientist say that the afterlife and God are part of the material world. I can’t answer God (because haven’t seen him) but with the growing of Near-death, reincarnation stories and bed-side phenomena plus the growing parapsychology units, I simply just flog it off as something stupid or not real. You say it yourself that we are not perfect beings, so why do we continue to pretend that we know everything about our reality?



   The problem with science and religion coexisting is one of cause for belief. Science deals with empirical evidence, that is, evidence that we can test and validate using our senses. Religion on the other hand is faith based. Faith is believing in something without having any evidence. This is a rather crude definition but I think it suits religion quite well. So the difference here is that science deals with testing and verifying what we can determine through our senses while religion purports to do the same with the immaterial. The two are then at odds to a certain degree which is why they have trouble coexisting.

   Also science never claims to know everything about our reality. I'm not quite sure where you got that notion. One of the greatest joys of science is the discovery of the unknown and the process of discovery continues to this day.



quote:

Don’t worry, I can dish results out. I really like this one:
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

Most Communist nations say they have the atheist but it is well know that they might be making up those Stats because they don’t like religion. The underground church in Russia and especially in Chine is really booming but they would not appear on the reports because they are hiding from the government. I know in my happy country(UK), we have 40 million Christians and our 60 million strong. Doesn’t mean we have 20 million atheist, though. I have talked to philosophers, theologians and atheists, they all agree that number of believers are growing. The same could be said for non-believers but no matter what you say, there are more believers then non-believers. Put it simple I say about 5.5 Billion people follow religion and 0.5 are non-believers.



  And all of these mind blowing stats are supporting evidence for a creator??? I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove here. Its obvious that many people are religious and believe in a god and or gods but you cannot use this as empirical evidence for the existance of a creator.


quote:

There is no thing called ‘Politics’, just like there is no thing called ‘Democracy’. I know they exist because I see their affects everyday but there is no material thing. I guess you can write ‘politics’ on a bit of paper and say that is it.



  And you are tyring to prove what??? We have direct evidence of these things every day. What we don't have is direct evidence that a god or gods exist.


Through all of this you seem to be implying that religion is somehow validated by the fact of its large number of adherents. I'm not sure when having a large number of adherents became grounds for evidence of actual existance.


Oh and earlier you mentioned that you can't use any of your senses to know that Pluto is real. I find this stunningly illogical. All you need to do is purchase a powerful enough telescope, and you'd probably have to get a very large one, and simply track the orbit of pluto around the solar system. Its as simple as that. My point is there is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of Pluto and using this as an example for your arguments is simply absurd.

I'll get back to this a little later. Still got some homework to finish.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

8/Jun/07, 4:06 am Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


General,
In my experience, I have actually found that those who know a great deal in these fields, don't take extreme positions and never revert to insults. There is a great deal of mystery in both science and religion, as well as philosophy, that seems to have a humbling affect on people, and those with a genuine interest often cross fields, sharing what they have learned with each other.

Your name dropping, without showing any understanding of the names you drop, is quite telling; your claims to have spoken to all of these people who believe like you, without giving me any names, or their reasoning for believing like you, leads me to believe that you are claiming something to look like you have a source, but that you, in fact, don't have any authoritative sources, to support the positions you assert.

Lets look at secular/nonreligious/agnostic and atheist, since it is the only place I can see that you tried to sound intelligent. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove but aiming solely at atheism, but it is a common talking point that I have come across with uninformed people trying to champion religion over science, particularly those trying to champion Christianity. One problem with you bringing up stats from any country, is one that you mentioned: the may have been falsified, or people may have answered differently than they truly believe out of fear of the authorities. Its really no secret that there are religions operating in secret in China and North Korea right now -- religions tend to thrive in times of oppression. Tibetan Buddhism also still survives despite Communist Chinese oppression, too. You can get skewed results, also, from US census data, where many people feel compelled to answer "Christian," particularly over atheist or Secular Humanist, etc.

Secular is, by definition, the material world, all that exists outside of the divine. To claim to adhere to secularism, is to claim freedom from religion, and choose to live in the secular world.

Non-religious means that religion is not something that is important to one's life, and thus to claim adherence to this position, indicates a feeling of apathy towards the question.

Agnostic is the position that one does not know enough to commit to any religion, or even to a position, like athiesm which states emphatically, that all religions are bunk. To take the position of agnostic, means that one needs more information, or life experience, before feeling comfortable choosing a religion. This is one of those, "I'm spiritual, but not religious" positions, or it can also indicate an interest in the study of religion, and be open to a possibility that religious claims have truth, but are so far, unconvinced.

Obviously, Athiesm is the extreme position of all of these, but all have one thing in common -- nonadherence to any religion, a number which you claim is not growing, but in all truth, is. Just because it is a small percentage does not mean that it does not have a growing affect.

And if one takes a Kierkegaardian view of religion, if it is not important in your life, you do not adhere to its values, then you are, in fact, not religious. Personally, I think the average person, if they are honest, would answer, "non-religious," because they only care on Sundays, or perhaps on special holidays. They don't weigh their daily choices on the ethical philosophies of their religions, and are not concerned with it 99% of their life. They answer Christian, etc, because they feel guilty if they don't.

General, in the realm of philosophy, the design argument has been smashed to pieces. No one takes it seriously. Even Kierkegaard was smart enough to never bring it up, despite his devout adherence to Christianity. He took it for granted that Christianity was truth, and the highest level of existence. He avoided metaphysical arguments about God's existence, and explored the existential profundities and ramifications of such on the world, and for humanity's state of existence. He was very much concerned about the spiritual state of his contemporaries, and the direction the world was moving in at his time.

Nietzsche considered Christianity the ultimate evil, because its values keep people from truly actualizing their true selves and becoming great, and it suppresses what he considered to be the driving force of all living things. Christianity touts poverty, turning the other cheek, being meek and passive, etc,. Nietzsche championed a very different set of ethics, looking to move beyond good and evil, and striving for power, which he felt was every living beings motivation in life. Sticking only to his "God is dead, and we have killed him" quote, only shows that you also know nothing of Nietzsche. Any casual reader of Nietzsche knows that the quote was made by a fictional Zarathustra, whose purpose in Nietzsche's work was to act as a prophet for the coming "superman," the man that would bring humanity to its next step towards greatness, getting past the conceptual pitfalls that most of humanity is trapped in.

The only people who take the design argument seriously are those who are uninformed on the topic, which is the vast majority of the population. So what? There was a time when the vast majority of the population believed that the earth was flat, and that it revolved around the Sun. Just because a lot of uninformed people believe something does not make it true, in fact, both of these positions started with those who adhered to them at less than a percentage point of the population, too. In the professional world, the design argument is dead, dead, dead. No one has brought it up for 100s of years in the realm of professional philosophy -- we have, in fact, moved on because it isn't important to those truly striving for knowledge. People who think they have everything figured out, without doing any real searching, are the only ones screaming about it at the top of their lungs. As always, new ideas slowly filter out of the ivory towers and the untenable positions die a slow death, usually after a great amount of anger.

Science and religion can get along, and do get along quite well in the minds of a great many Christians, Jews and others, who know the limits of knowledge that each can bring. Science can't answer the questions of, "why are we here?" and "what is the purpose of my existence?" Nor can it answer any of the other great problems of our existence. However, what it can do, and does an admirable job of, is addressing questions of how, and giving a descriptive narrative of the Universe we live in. Science has given us self-propelled vehicles, the power of flight, of computer, video games, and a great deal many other things, like better medicines. However, it takes philosophy and religion to answer the questions of right, wrong, and the gray areas. Science unchecked brings you things like Nazi medical experiments on human beings, as well as contemporary to the Nazis, Japanese doing similar tests on Chinese and Koreans, science also brings us deadlier, more efficient weapons, such as the Atomic Bomb.

The problems occur when you get assholes that think the Bible explains how the world came to be better than evolutionary theory and its literal mountains of data and evidence. They clash when uninformed atheists claims that science has somehow disproven the existence of God or gods, or ghosts, etc. There is an awful lot in the human existence that science cannot do for us, but there is also an awful lot that it can do better than religion can. The trick is in knowing when to draw from which pool of knowledge.

You still miss the point in claiming there is no such thing as "politics" and "democracy." They are manifestations of human behavior, evidence of them can be directly experienced and seen daily -- empirical evidence testifies to their existence. They can be directly experienced by average human beings, who, when being honest, testify to the existence of these institutions. Christianity is proven in the same manner.

What you are trying to prove is something different. You are using the abstract nature of things like politics to try and claim that since politics does not exist, but people say it does, that then the claims made by Christians cannot be refuted, otherwise, people are being hypocritical. In truth, you are muddling things and making an error.

This is the scenario you want to draw up: Politics is a category, much like religion. Individual political theories, such as free-market capitalism, universal health care, etc, can be compared to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc

Now, what science has a beef with are some tenets in Christianity, that they claim disprove science, such as Creationism versus evolution; God exists in the material world. You can takes something like Free-market capitalism and ask them to prove their tenets, that tax-free societies operate better than taxed societies, etc. Free-market capitalism is an influential school of political thought, much like Christianity is an influential religious institution. I can see people praying to Jesus and God, I can see the buildings erected in Christianity's name. Likewise, I can go to the Rand Institute, read political treatises or look at politicians that champion Free-market capitalism. I know that these are forces in the world.

However, I question some of the ideas that Free-market capitalism claims are true; I doubt these claims for a variety of reasons. Likewise, I doubt many of the claims about the truth of the material world that some sects of Christianity espouses.

In short, General, you have made a categorical error, and thus, your attempt fell short.




---

8/Jun/07, 6:21 am Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


Grenseal, that was a really good post. Chlamydia(is that your name, who cares), you bore the hell out of me….

Grenseal
Calling Sartre does not end my argument. I don’t like him or agree with that French guy. I am not too sure on Nietzsche on Religion is but most of his ideas on ‘God’ circle around that phase. Quite frankly, if I want to call a philosopher a twat… I will. I am not saying they are not smart but I quite frankly a twat. I have said nothing about Nietzsche because he is the philosopher I least know about(apart from that quote and what it means).

I never said that since science can’t fully explain he universe then there must be a creator. I don’t think the Designer has fallen to pieces, Kant came up with the best objection. I agree with Kant(a Christian), I think God is beyond our senses and understanding. I have heard nothing, which would make me think the designer argument doesn’t works. Lots of scientists think it works and many people are too stupid to know what it means. Big university in America which looks into the Designer argument… the argument is far from dead.
BTW, no one ever thought that the World was flat… that is the most common mistake everyone has made. No-where is it documented that people thought the world was around. Greeks knew it was round, Chinese knew, Arabs knew, etc. It is pretty obvious that the world is round, anyway.

Heh, That is why science is trying to merge with religion and trying to prove its claims, hence the Materialist Christian movement. I believe in an afterlife, now there is evidence to suggest there might be one. Science(like you said) is just a method of understand. I hate when people say Science is a their religion because science is not a ‘thing’ but I method of how we understand stuff. Not all religions are faith based, Buddhism has no faith attached to it.
I never said science(I hate using collective terms) claims to know everything, but many people pretend to know everything.
Also, you can’t base everything on empirical evidence. Descartes and Kant said this.

Someone said that number of Religious followers is falling and I said it wasn’t, thus all the stats coming out. I know the ‘argument for masses’ proves nothing but I thought it would be fun to argue. Religious numbers are not falling and I know they are growing.
Chlamydia (or what ever your name is) says that a lot of results are falsified but it is only in communist nations where religion is hated, so they don’t come up on the chart. The majority of the worlds atheists are reported coming from Chine, Russia and other commie nations but what the people there really think is different. As I have said, you don’t have to be a devout to believe in God. You can secretly believe in God because you don’t want it to get in the way of your life. Some people probably don’t and will not answer to either atheism or theist. One guy said:
“If you say you’re religious, people think you’re a nut case. If you say you’re Atheist, People think you’re an arrogant twat”
And I know what Agnostics, Atheism, etc means.

You’re missing the point, I know ‘politics’ and ‘Democracy’ exist but only as concepts. There is no material thing called ‘Politics’. If an Alien came down and said ‘What is Politics?’, you would give a number of definitions. Then it asked ‘Can you show me this Politics?’ and pointed at a school or a tax document and said this is Politics… well that is silly, that is the result of Politics. There is no ‘thing’(like a blob or something) which is politics. Ever seen V For Vendetta? He said that ideas do not take material forms but that is them as there strongest but you can’t get rid of them. Why the idea of God will last forever but the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, etc is very powerful and hard to destroy. The point is that not everything can be proved using empirical evidence, you have to rationality as well.

Well now we can check for Pluto, I was talking about when it was first discovered. How the rest of us do knew that it existed, the two scientists could have made it up for a laugh. The point of example is about personal testament.

Oh and Chlamydia, I am not really going to tell who these people are. Friends, college teachers, uni professors… I am not giving their names. I am looking for the atheist who said that quote about atheism not being around in 50 years.
8/Jun/07, 9:03 am Link 2 this post  
 
Cleamatra Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Guardian
 


Reg: 08-2005
Loc: Kuroishi -shi, Aomori Japan
Posts: 388
Greatness: 3 (+40/-37)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


General,

If you want to discuss with me, then actually read what I wrote. Secondly, the point about sources is that you can give the facts and reasoning and reasoning they use for their argument. Given that these people think this way, there must be some source out there that you could use to back it up. I gave a scholarly source that showed otherwise. You have your assertion and "friends." My friends disagree with you.

Some educated people contemplated that the Earth was not flat. Most people never did, particularly landlocked and uneducated people. Guess what? Education for the masses is relatively new in the human experience. Even the educated Jews believed the Earth, as did most peoples of the ancient world, was flat. You are commiting the fallacy of assuming that the elites give a fair representation of the common people, which is a common error. At some point in human history, the vast majority of people believed the Earth was flat. They didn't have the knowledge of mathematics, or access to large areas of flat space, such as an ocean, to get a hint of a curved horizon, and even then, one would have to associate the curved horizon with a spherical object. Get were this is going, or perhaps it is too boring for you?

Given that you have to resort to calling me names in this discussion, I think, proves that you are a defeated man, and harboring quite a bit of resentment for not being up to par with your ego. Thanks for the rational, respectful discussion.

Last edited by Cleamatra, 8/Jun/07, 12:36 pm


---

8/Jun/07, 12:23 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM MSN YIM
 
General Queeaqueg Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Midgar Zolom
 


Reg: 01-2006
Posts: 554
Greatness: -41 (+23/-64)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


Go on, Chlamydia, prove to me that landlocked and uneducated people thought the Earth was flat. Should we go back in time and ask them.

A few retards might have thought the world is round like Mesopotamian but who is to say. Not my documents round suggesting that people thought the world flat(nor did they say the world was round, so most people assume these thought that it was flat).
I think China thought the world was squarish and heaven was round, I think.
Not even the Bible says it flat, they thought the World was sort of pear-shaped. Ask Stephen Fry, he'll set you straight(in knowledge ways).
There are even people now who say the world is Flat(they are not all religious BTW).

Anyway, you are still boring me...
Let’s start again -
I think the designer argument is one of the strongest arguments. If things are weak, they are destroyed and people wouldn't use them but this isn't. Hume and Kant are the only two people which have come close to getting rid of this argument. The jumbo-jet idea can work both ways. Hyde(I think) said that the probability of life on Earth was a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard a putting together a Jet in perfect nick. The idea that complex life couldn't have come by chance. Dawkins himself said this argument is hard to counter, he says that we wear 'Designer Glasses'(heh), so that we everything and think it must have been designed. That is rubbish, Kant had a simual idea with 'Space-Time' googles, he idea that we wear these sort of googles which means we can never know the divine. Hume says that complex doesn't mean we need a designer but I see no other options on how we got here.
I think the chance that we live a perfect universe(call it what you want, not exactly you have another universe to compare it with.. it supports life... good enough) runs with the chance of there being a God.

Irenaus point to show a way around the idea of an all loving God. You said somewhere that you could see a benevolent God making bad things in the universe and suffering. Irenaus got round that by saying that God created the Universe imperfect and humans imperfect but with the potential to become perfect. Evil and suffering is needed because without it, we wouldn't learn.

The next point was when someone said that there is empirical knowledge disproving Religion which is complete rubbish. Science is now working with religion to try a least prove its claims which has led to the Materialist Christian Movement(must have said this a billion times now) and institutes se to prove the Afterlife... near-death, reincarnation stories and bed-side stuff is still very confusing. Some scientist thinks he will have the afterlife proved!

Next was the idea that Religious numbers are falling which I said was wrong, religion is still as strong as it has ever been. The Russia and Chinese underground churches are booming. Many people believe in God but don't conform to a religion, it is possible. Some people simple don't care and rather say no to religion and atheism. You can't deny this, though, 5.0 billion people worldwide follow a religion and even the other 1.0 billion people might still have a belief in God but don't choose to follow a religion. This has nothing to do with proving some right as I have said the 'Argument for masses' is rubbish.

Next, might as well put this back in. You’re missing the point, I know ‘politics’ and ‘Democracy’ exist but only as concepts. There is no material thing called ‘Politics’. If an Alien came down and said ‘What is Politics?’, you would give a number of definitions. Then it asked ‘Can you show me this Politics?’ and pointed at a school or a tax document and said this is Politics… well that is silly, that is the result of Politics. There is no ‘thing’(like a blob or something) which is politics. Ever seen V For Vendetta? He said that ideas do not take material forms but that is them as there strongest but you can’t get rid of them. Why the idea of God will last forever but the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, etc is very powerful and hard to destroy. The point is that not everything can be proved using empirical evidence, you have to rationality as well.

I have read that depressed twat Sartre. I do know a fair bit about Kierkegaard having read his 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript'. I openly admit that I know nothing of Nietzsche(apart form the quote and what it means).

I haven't called you names, I called Sartre names. Anyway, I am glad your friends disagree with me... they are probably retards anyway.
8/Jun/07, 2:39 pm Link 2 this post  
 
Grenseal Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ultima Weapon
 


Reg: 11-2003
Loc: Port City Baltimore
Posts: 1111
Greatness: 66 (+81/-15)
Reply Quote
Re: This is why religion scares me....


quote:


I haven't called you names, I called Sartre names. Anyway, I am glad your friends disagree with me... they are probably retards anyway.



I think repeatedly calling him Chlamydia constitutes name calling.


quote:

I never said that since science can’t fully explain he universe then there must be a creator. I don’t think the Designer has fallen to pieces, Kant came up with the best objection. I agree with Kant(a Christian), I think God is beyond our senses and understanding. I have heard nothing, which would make me think the designer argument doesn’t works. Lots of scientists think it works and many people are too stupid to know what it means. Big university in America which looks into the Designer argument… the argument is far from dead.



  Please then locate for me a university which teaches courses in the design argument in their science department. Like Cleamatra said this argument is all but dead amongst professionals. Really the only front I hear championing nowadays is that of a few Christians who are trying to get it included in the public schools over here. The reason the concept is so dead in science is because it cannot be tested. This shows that it is an argument from faith and not from empirical evidence.


quote:

Heh, That is why science is trying to merge with religion and trying to prove its claims, hence the Materialist Christian movement. I believe in an afterlife, now there is evidence to suggest there might be one. Science(like you said) is just a method of understand. I hate when people say Science is a their religion because science is not a ‘thing’ but I method of how we understand stuff. Not all religions are faith based, Buddhism has no faith attached to it.
I never said science(I hate using collective terms) claims to know everything, but many people pretend to know everything.
Also, you can’t base everything on empirical evidence. Descartes and Kant said this.




  I've never known that science is trying to merge with religion. Where are some examples of this and who exactly is trying to do this???

The thing is when start not basing knowledge on emprical evidence you start basing it on faith. These things are not testable and cannot be verified through the empirical process. Also what evidence do you have of an afterlife???


quote:

You’re missing the point, I know ‘politics’ and ‘Democracy’ exist but only as concepts. There is no material thing called ‘Politics’. If an Alien came down and said ‘What is Politics?’, you would give a number of definitions. Then it asked ‘Can you show me this Politics?’ and pointed at a school or a tax document and said this is Politics… well that is silly, that is the result of Politics. There is no ‘thing’(like a blob or something) which is politics. Ever seen V For Vendetta? He said that ideas do not take material forms but that is them as there strongest but you can’t get rid of them. Why the idea of God will last forever but the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, etc is very powerful and hard to destroy. The point is that not everything can be proved using empirical evidence, you have to rationality as well.



Sure people can believe in a god or gods but the problem I have is when they start claiming that their own religion is correct even when they are demonstrably false. There's nothing wrong with believing there might be a god but when you start saying the christian god of the bible is correct, the claims quickly become absurd.


quote:

Well now we can check for Pluto, I was talking about when it was first discovered. How the rest of us do knew that it existed, the two scientists could have made it up for a laugh. The point of example is about personal testament.




The difference here is that the claim can be directly verified through observable evidence.

I'll get to the rest of this later on. Gotta run for a bit.

---
Icewind Dale II talk

Ulbrec: ...Ennelia and Braston will meet you there, Targos's fate hinges on your success.

My response: I think Targos's fate hinges on how much Shawford can pay us from the Targos treasury.

8/Jun/07, 3:32 pm Link 2 this post Email   PM AIM MSN
 


Add a reply

Page  1  2  3  4 ... 6  7  8 






You are not logged in (Login) Or Register an account

Local Business Directory, Search Engine Submission & SEO Tools