|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted August 15, 2008 04:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we also have proofs - or at least SOMETHING that concerns the subject.
Exactly and that doesn't prove anything
Quote:
Bible, the history of Christ, many people's personal experience - for example.
You could write a "bible" for pink unicorns, call a unicorn bob and make it act virtousely etc. and have 1000 people say that they've had personal experiences with pink unicorns and you'd have just as much proof as christianity has. Theoretically.
But I must admit that there is more to religion (atleast christianity for me personally). There simply is. And it doesn't count as "scientific" proof perhaps but it's something . But I mean what are we argueing for you've already summed it up pretty nicely.
Quote:
All I'm trying to say is that it's a personal preference whether you do or do not believe..
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Vexon
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 04:59 PM |
|
|
But therein lies the problem. God is shielded from proof. He's timeless, placeless, matterless, faceless, completely without any shape and without any form. He is incorporeal and invisible. There is absolutely no way to disprove the existence of God, and is therefore impossible to point out. So, what it comes down to in the end is faith.
Believe in something that can never be indicated by anything other than a presence people felt during a specific time in their lives, or don't. I, myself, do not. I find it ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous and another word I can't even think of right now.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Argument to authority is a logical fallacy.
Hmm, you do that all the time. You subdue to authority:
1) your senses
2) devices built by others, or built by yourself, ASSUMING they work correctly (for example, you test in labs, it works in a certain way, then you ASSUME it works outside, for example).
3) sometimes even to "other human" authority (e.g: "Research has shown that...")
I'm sure if you were given videos from NASA, you would have no problem accepting them as FACTS. However, if a guy shows you a picture of an alien, you don't believe it, UNLESS this is approved by the authorities, in our case, NASA.
@Doomforge: I agree that pink unicorns are not the same (in fact, I like how people choose "silly" examples, when in fact silliness is not objective!) because of the wealth of "information" about God.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I, myself, do not. I find it ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous and another word I can't even think of right now.
Heehe you wouldn't be jealous would you ? (Of course I'm jokeing). But yes you're right it comes down to faith. And as I said before I'm not sure why I believe but I do believe (very strongly infact).
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You could write a "bible" for pink unicorns, call a unicorn bob and make it act virtousely etc. and have 1000 people say that they've had personal experiences with pink unicorns and you'd have just as much proof as christianity has. Theoretically.
Go ahead and try. Write a 20000 page long unicorn bible, convince people - different people: rich, poor, stupid, brilliant, sick, healthy - that it is the truth, legalize it, make it known around the world, taught in schools.. etc.
Too much?  ok, if you convince 100 people to follow you, I will agree.. but right now, it's just claiming something that can't happen.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But therein lies the problem. God is shielded from proof. He's timeless, placeless, matterless, faceless, completely without any shape and without any form. He is incorporeal and invisible. There is absolutely no way to disprove the existence of God, and is therefore impossible to point out. So, what it comes down to in the end is faith.
What problem? Has religion murdered your entire family and now you seek revenge?
Nothing bad (in fact, sometimes even good) comes out of religion (except for those people who live 200 years in the past and feel that they have to fight the battles of long-dead scientists).
Anyways, I'll shutup now, because I don't like what I just said and there's a degree of yahtzee-ness...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:07 PM |
|
|
Doomforge:
Quote:
If extreme and genius scientists can't use science to determine whether there is a higher power or not, so can't we.
If Lord Kelvin says that everything that is to be invented has already been invented, who are we to say anything? And you can't really disprove something's existence.
Quote:
Go ahead and try. Write a 20000 page long unicorn bible, convince people - different people: rich, poor, stupid, brilliant, sick, healthy - that it is the truth, legalize it, make it known around the world, taught in schools.. etc.
Scientiology?
TheDeath:
Quote:
You know, the world is full of "bad" people in case you didn't know. Some bad people (e.g: Stalin, just so you have a definite atheist) don't allow others do a lot of things.
But he didn't do it because he was an atheist.
Quote:
And if you're talking about environmentalists (not religion) then yeah -- you see, those with "material" goods want SOMETHING, that bothers something else.
Are you sure you want to discuss this?
Quote:
The appropiate response would be "I don't know whether Invisible pink unicorns exist or not" -- this doesn't have any burden of proof.
The appropriate response is "I don't know whether invisible pink unicorns exist or not, but given that I have no reason to think that they do, I will act under the assumption that they don't, until shown otherwise."
Quote:
1) your senses
2) devices built by others, or built by yourself, ASSUMING they work correctly (for example, you test in labs, it works in a certain way, then you ASSUME it works outside, for example).
That's not what argument to authority means.
DagothGares:
Quote:
What problem? Has religion murdered your entire family and now you seek revenge?
Who knows how much more advanced we'd be without religion?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Vexon
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:08 PM |
|
|
It's nice to see people that can kid about ''serious business''. I've gotten in a lot of arguements concerning religion in which I ended up leaving because the opposing party was pissing me off by shouting ''WRONG!'' every two words I said, even when they were in their favor. I'm considered an atheist but I do believe some religions have good ideas that can be used outside of the context of God, hence my sometimes agreeing with religious people. Some of my best friends are religious, and as long as they don't try to ''save'' me, we're cool.
To me, the main problem about the whole arguement is people not taking the time to think about what others say before getting right back into their ''You're wrong, because I say so''-routine. I'll be passive to this discussion for a while again, but I'll be reading along.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:09 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 17:11, 15 Aug 2008.
|
Well if I'd told you arround the year 0 that Jesus would found a new religion that millions of people would follow you'd also say that that's "just claiming something that can't happen" .
Of course it would be much more difficult to make pink unicorns popular as you have a hard time explaining to your fellow man that your fellow unicorn can do something for you (Jesus was human which is a HUGE selling factor). I mean come on the bible is a good story with lots of violence and action who wouldn't read it. And then you have all the virtues I mean it's awesome (well it isn't but nevermind). Naturally it would grow to become so popular. But you see what I ment to say with my example was that christanity has no proof except for that "something". Dude the bible and the church are no proof what so ever.
EDIT: Ehm.. Dagoth I think you are being a bit harsh with Vexon he is actually presenting his points in a very friendly and communicative way not "BURN ALL CHRISTIAN!! ARRRRGH UNREASONABLE FOOLS!!"
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But therein lies the problem. God is shielded from proof. He's timeless, placeless, matterless, faceless, completely without any shape and without any form. He is incorporeal and invisible. There is absolutely no way to disprove the existence of God, and is therefore impossible to point out. So, what it comes down to in the end is faith.
In a way, you are mostly right. But remember, that we as humans, have something more than just "logic" -- rationality is much BROADER than logic. If we were to be ONLY logical, we would be computers. Computers, as we know, are not very "bright" regardless of how many things it can memorize. Simply because it doesn't "think", it only acts 'logically'. Rationality requires thinking, when BOTH of your brain hemispheres work, not only the left.
All humans have two hemi-spheres in the brain: the left and the right. The left deals with logic. Why place more emphasis on it than the right? (which deals with creativity, visualization and sometimes, deep thoughts and philosophy, albeit in the 'imagining' sense)
i'm not saying the above proves God! In fact, like I already said, we have more than just accepting only logic and evidence -- we wouldn't be "bright" if we were like that. Even Science itself has axioms and postulates.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If Lord Kelvin says that everything that is to be invented has already been invented, who are we to say anything? And you can't really disprove something's existence.
Bad thinking. You see, you (or other guys, doesn't matter who)back up your point of view with science, referring to laws discovered by scientists.. the same scientists who say the laws they discovered, along with others, aren't enough to judge.
See now? People who give "scientifical" reasons try to be more of a scientist than those who created the laws they use as an argument..
it is pointless and stupid..
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:12 PM |
|
|
@ vexon: that's what quote wars are. People quote something of other people, rip that out of context and say that they're right and awesome. You can't win quote wars, because people don't want to follow eachother's arguments. They want to take out one piece of it and shout: "HAHA, your argument is flawed!"
It's still fun, though...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:14 PM |
|
|
Doomforge:
Quote:
You see, you back up your point of view with science, referring to laws discovered by scientists.
William of Ockham, the guy after whom Occam's Razor is named was a theist. But today atheists use Occam's Razor to argue against the existence of God. Doesn't mean anything. Einstein was an opponent of quantum physics. And there are plenty of atheists among scientists too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:15 PM |
|
|
Pardon me being very thick but your point iiiiiiis?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Pardon me being very thick but your point iiiiiiis?
I had the exact same feeling...
EDIT: not exactly with mvass, but with other people too...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
My point is that a principle may be valid even if its creator says that it isn't (for something).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
mvass: I absolutely agree on the matter of scientist not being an oracle. My point was: that does not prove anything. If scientists can't decide themselves (some are as Einstein, some are theists, some are atheists), it means that we, people of lesser knowledge and "scientifical" way of thinking shouldn't use it as argument.
I think it's pretty logical
But I disagree with your last post. If someone created the rule, his mind is so much superior to yours that it's pointless for you to try to understand things better than he did. Unless you are a scientists or genius yourself, trying to create a counter-law or improve his one.. but you're not, are you?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:21 PM |
|
|
But you have to look at theist scientists' belief. It's pretty different from that of most theists. Most theist scientists are deist or almost deist. They seem to accept that science explains most things.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They seem to accept that science explains most things.
How does it "explain" actually, I don't recall it having a knowledge to pass on.
Why do you have to "explain" something, whatever that is. I mean, explain it in a "controllable" and 'reasonable' sense (WHATEVER that means, it's purely subjective)???
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2008 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They seem to accept that science explains most things.
so do I and it doesn't prevent me from believing in God. Just like it does not prevent the theist scientists from doing so.
I guess we came to an agreement, so i better prepare my chess lesson instead of continuing the topic
Have fun with the incoming quotewar, TheDeath and Mvass
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
