This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
It's like me saying I believe in a singularity in the center of a black hole. We can't prove they exist, but am I ignorant for believing in them?
Singularities can be backed up, to an extent, using mathematics and logic.
Post by
Monday
It's like me saying I believe in a singularity in the center of a black hole. We can't prove they exist, but am I ignorant for believing in them?
Singularities can be backed up, to an extent, using mathematics and logic.
And I back up my faith with personal; experience, which is neither better nor worse than logic/mathematics.
Post by
Skreeran
You do realise the irony of those two questions, right?I used to believe really hard. And in a time when I really, really needed God, he wasn't there for me.
Then I realized that he didn't exist.
Then you don't hate ignorant people? That's contrary to what you said earlier.There is a difference between being ignorant on a single matter and being an ignorant person.
You verbally abuse some religious people - does that mean that we should hate you?I don't think I'm verbally abusing anyone. Have I called anyone here an idiot? A retard? A #$%?
This is a good analogy, despite being religiously intolerant - not all Muslims are militants or extremists.I never said that. I just said "another religious person."
And if you don't believe that there are not militant extremist Muslims out there, then I think I'm done talking to you.
The thing is, a belief in A, B or C is just as irrational as a belief that D exists with no evidence.I don't see how it's irrational to look for a better theory if none of the suggested ones fit the data right.
Secondly, if you think that people who are religious just sit and bask in the glory of God, then you're either surrounded by evangelists, or you're wrong. Have you heard of bible study? People do keep searching for God, because they want to be closer to him, and be better for him. In the same way that physics scientists search for physical answers to their physical theory, they search for spiritual answers to back up their spiritual theory. It's just not 'searching' for answers in the way that you're thinking.Problem is, God is a physical matter, not just a spiritual one. When you claim that God created the universe, that he made man from dust, that he healed a woman, or that he sent his son to die for our sins, you're throwing the ball into the court of physical reality. If you can't back it up, then that should be acknowledged.
So then, if I haven't seen the experiments to prove that singularities exist can I call them irrational?The experiments and math and theory is all out there if you want to look.
So who to you is a rational non-ignorant religious person?Well, you for example. And my mother. And my father. And Barack Obama. And Benjamin Franklin.
Post by
Orranis
It's like me saying I believe in a singularity in the center of a black hole. We can't prove they exist, but am I ignorant for believing in them?
Singularities can be backed up, to an extent, using mathematics and logic.
And I back up my faith with personal; experience, which is neither better nor worse than logic/mathematics.
I got really confused by that semicolon.
And in my opinion, yes, your personal experience's hold far less water than mathematics. In fact, mathematics are about the only thing we can use to be near sure of anything in this world.
Post by
Heckler
Jefferson. I like the deist perspective, and although I disagree with it, I'd certainly call Jefferson rational, smart and religious (although I'm not sure many theists would).
Ooh, well said. I would probably choose Deism as my favorite "religion" because of its rationality (quotes included because Deism may or may not qualify as a religion, depending on the definition you pick for that word).
Post by
Monday
It's like me saying I believe in a singularity in the center of a black hole. We can't prove they exist, but am I ignorant for believing in them?
Singularities can be backed up, to an extent, using mathematics and logic.
And I back up my faith with personal; experience, which is neither better nor worse than logic/mathematics.
I got really confused by that semicolon.
And in my opinion, yes, your personal experience's hold far less water than mathematics. In fact, mathematics are about the only thing we can use to be near sure of anything in this world.
It was a typo, ignore it. If you've noticed my fingers like to drift toward the semicolon. =P
But, to quote every singe annoying three year old, Why?
Mathematics are better than experience? Then why is it that scientists constantly test theories? Sometimes the numbers don't work out.
Post by
Orranis
It's like me saying I believe in a singularity in the center of a black hole. We can't prove they exist, but am I ignorant for believing in them?
Singularities can be backed up, to an extent, using mathematics and logic.
And I back up my faith with personal; experience, which is neither better nor worse than logic/mathematics.
I got really confused by that semicolon.
And in my opinion, yes, your personal experience's hold far less water than mathematics. In fact, mathematics are about the only thing we can use to be near sure of anything in this world.
It was a typo, ignore it. If you've noticed my fingers like to drift toward the semicolon. =P
But, to quote every singe annoying three year old, Why?
Mathematics are better than experience? Then why is it that scientists constantly test theories? Sometimes the numbers don't work out.
Just my opinion. Math works for everybody, your experience work for you. Why are yours equal to them? Why?
Post by
Monday
Just my opinion. Math works for everybody, your experience work for you. Why are yours equal to them? Why?
Experience and math must work in conjunction. Which is why I said they are equal.
Main reason is that sometimes the numbers don't work out, sometimes the theory falls flat. And you would never know that unless you tested it and had a personal experience.
Post by
Orranis
Just my opinion. Math works for everybody, your experience work for you. Why are yours equal to them? Why?
Experience and math must work in conjunction. Which is why I said they are equal.
Main reason is that sometimes the numbers don't work out, sometimes the theory falls flat. And you would never know that unless you tested it and had a personal experience.
What? You can test your equation without observing the object in question.
Post by
Heckler
And I back up my faith with personal; experience, which is neither better nor worse than logic/mathematics.
In my opinion, personal experience is infinitely better. (edited for clarity)
Just my opinion. Math works for everybody, your experience work for you. Why are yours equal to them? Why?
Math serves a different purpose. The goal of Religion is not to convince everyone, but only yourself. There is nothing stronger than personal revelation at doing this (provided it's real -- luckily you get to be the judge of this and no one can interfere).
The gray area comes in when you consider what would constitute "the voice of God" -- I'm sure there's an infinite number of examples where Skeeran and Funden could experience the exact same thing and reach different conclusions about its meaning. That's what makes religion so deeply personal. But I'll stand by what I said -- in your own mind, there is nothing stronger than first hand experience at fostering "belief."
Post by
Monday
Just my opinion. Math works for everybody, your experience work for you. Why are yours equal to them? Why?
Experience and math must work in conjunction. Which is why I said they are equal.
Main reason is that sometimes the numbers don't work out, sometimes the theory falls flat. And you would never know that unless you tested it and had a personal experience.
What? You can test your equation without observing the object in question.
But can you test whether the chemicals will react the way you think they will without observing? Can you test whether the building will hold up during a storm without observing it?
And I'm out.
Post by
Squishalot
And in a time when I really, really needed God, he wasn't there for me.
Then no, you didn't believe hard enough. God isn't a parent who you can keep asking for money from when you need it. He's there to give you inspiration to do better things (if I'm not mistaken).
And that's notwithstanding the point that that's only the Christian understanding of what God is. The Jewish version would probably tell you to go suck it up and stop being such a whiney brat.
There is a difference between being ignorant on a single matter and being an ignorant person.
Ok, I'll take that point.
I don't think I'm verbally abusing anyone. Have I called anyone here an idiot? A retard? A #$%?
Not in this thread, you haven't. You have in others though.
I never said that. I just said "another religious person."
The implication was there. This is what I mean about being rude and/or disrespectful.
And if you don't believe that there are not militant extremist Muslims out there, then I think I'm done talking to you.
I never said that. I implied that stereotyping is wrong.
I don't see how it's irrational to look for a better theory if none of the suggested ones fit the data right.
A, B and C do fit though, with their understanding of the universe. D fits with your understanding of the universe. Again, it's
just as irrational
, key point being that they're equally (ir)rational.
But of course, I'm agnostic, so I'm somewhat biased in that respect ;)
Problem is, God is a physical matter, not just a spiritual one. When you claim that God created the universe, that he made man from dust, that he healed a woman, or that he sent his son to die for our sins, you're throwing the ball into the court of physical reality. If you can't back it up, then that should be acknowledged.
Strawman based on you arguing about Christianity. That doesn't preclude the existence of a god. Although my points related to Christianity, they can be applied to any religion, agnosticism included.
Exactly my point. Bible Study is not scientific, it's not seeking to rationally prove anything. As I've said before, a search for proof implies acceptance that it may not exist. I would be wiling to say anyone who researches the bible trying to "prove" God's existence doesn't have much "Faith" at all.
Scientists on the other hand are doing exactly that -- trying to prove something -- not just for themselves, but for everyone. And a scientific proof doesn't have validity unless it can be repeated independently.
Religious studies don't require this qualifier, because they're not the same, and I'm not sure which side should be more offended by your comparisons.
I agree and disagree, though. Scientists will run experiments assuming that certain theories will work, and not necessarily to test said theories. I'll withdraw the previous statement, since I mucked up the analogy, and replace it with this:
People do keep searching for God, because they want to be closer to him, and be better for him, with the assumption that he exists. In the same way that physics scientists build on their physical theory by applying it to other research questions, they search for spiritual answers that build up on their belief. It's just not 'searching' for answers in the way that you're thinking.
How's that?
Post by
Heckler
People do keep searching for God, because they want to be closer to him, and be better for him, with the assumption that he exists. In the same way that physics scientists build on their physical theory by applying it to other research questions, they search for spiritual answers that build up on their belief. It's just not 'searching' for answers in the way that you're thinking.
Sure, you've used "search" in a different way than I meant (not looking for proof, but rather how to better serve) -- and as you said, that's not searching in the way I meant. Any scientists who run experiments that are not an attempt at proving something aren't "searching" for proof in the method I meant either.
So you either agree with me, or this analogy needs work too. =)
Post by
Squishalot
People do keep searching for God, because they want to be closer to him, and be better for him, with the assumption that he exists. In the same way that physics scientists build on their physical theory by applying it to other research questions, they search for spiritual answers that build up on their belief. It's just not 'searching' for answers in the way that you're thinking.
Sure, you've used "search" in a different way than I meant (not looking for proof, but rather how to better serve) -- and as you said, that's not searching in the way I meant. Any scientists who run experiments that are not an attempt at proving something aren't "searching" for proof in the method I meant either.
So you either agree with me, or this analogy needs work too. =)
Oh, I do agree with you, I'm just saying that non-theist scientists will often make the same flaws in logic as theist believers. That's the whole point I've been trying to make to Skreeran in the first place.
The only thing I'd disagree about is on searching for proof of God. I'm fairly certain that religious people attempt to demonstrate that other denominations and religions are incorrect at times, and this would, in essence, be the peer-review that people think the Church doesn't have.
Post by
Heckler
Well I'm sure I've probably already said enough for you to know how I feel about anyone trying to prove or disprove Divinity, regardless of their beliefs (assuming thats what you mean by saying a religion is correct or incorrect).
Attempting to prove or disprove that which is not provable or disprovable seems a pretty silly use of your time on this Earth, does it not?
Post by
Squishalot
Well I'm sure I've probably already said enough for you to know how I feel about anyone trying to prove or disprove Divinity, regardless of their beliefs (assuming thats what you mean by saying a religion is correct or incorrect).
Attempting to prove or disprove that which is not provable or disprovable seems a pretty silly use of your time on this Earth, does it not?
Philosophy is essentially the study of questions for which there are no single factual right or wrong answers. But I don't think it's a silly use of your time to demonstrate why one answer is significantly superior to other answers.
There's as much evidence for God as there is for hidden variables causing quantum randomness, i.e. none.
So by your argument, why would you continue to search for said variables?
Post by
Heckler
Well I'm sure I've probably already said enough for you to know how I feel about anyone trying to prove or disprove Divinity, regardless of their beliefs (assuming thats what you mean by saying a religion is correct or incorrect).
Attempting to prove or disprove that which is not provable or disprovable seems a pretty silly use of your time on this Earth, does it not?
Philosophy is essentially the study of questions for which there are no single factual right or wrong answers. But I don't think it's a silly use of your time to demonstrate why one answer is significantly superior to other answers.
First, philosophy is different, and is not a search for scientific proof of the supernatural. And it would be
quite
silly to present a philosophical argument in place of a scientific one.
There's as much evidence for God as there is for hidden variables causing quantum randomness, i.e. none.
So by your argument, why would you continue to search for said variables?
Because I've accepted that I cannot, through my own efforts, prove or disprove God's existence -- or more properly, that if God wanted his existence proven, he could simply prove it; and if he did not want it to be provable, then it would certainly be within his power to make it that way too. It is therefore futile to attempt to prove or disprove it. (there's also no scientific path to this proof other than trying to deduce the infinite number of other explanations).
For the variables, I've made no such acceptance. They may exist, and they warrant an attempt at proof. They also do not have the ability to reveal themselves to me all on their own (or do they? o.O) and therefore it is the duty of Science to attempt to sniff them out.
edits: grammar, i must be getting tired.
Post by
Orranis
There's as much evidence for God as there is for hidden variables causing quantum randomness, i.e. none.
So by your argument, why would you continue to search for said variables?
Want to know the difference between atheist and theist and quantum randomness and hidden variables?
Quantum Randomness or hidden variables is choosing between two things we cannot prove or disprove.
Theism or atheism is choosing between something we can prove and something we cannot prove or disprove.
Edit: On a second note, as soon as this page loaded Jame's Hetfield screamed hell from (left me in life with hell! in One), and I chuckled.
Post by
Heckler
Quantum Randomness or hidden variables is choosing between two things we cannot prove or disprove.
I think this is Squish's point -- choosing either without proof is
exactly
as irrational as choosing God.
Theism or atheism is choosing between something we can prove and something we cannot prove or disprove.
And again to Squish's point, if
either
of these are provable or disprovable, then the other is too.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.