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
Monday
Do you consider religious people ignorant Skree?
Because if you think about it, you cannot prove that God
doesn't
exist, thus they cannot be considered ignorant.
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?
Post by
Skreeran
Do you consider religious people ignorant Skree?
Because if you think about it, you cannot prove that God
doesn't
exist, thus they cannot be considered ignorant.
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?You can't prove that
anything
doesn't exist.
Flawed argument.
The singularity of a black hole, on the other hand, while theoretical, can be physically explained and understood, and the effects of them can be observed. We can see, or at least imagine without much difficulty and without violating any of the other principles that we have observed, how a black hole works, and how they are formed.
God, on the other hand, seems less like a detailed theory backed by evidence, and more like a Law, like gravity or electromagnetism, which, as far as I know, are so fundamental that they can only be verified through observation.
However, both gravity and electromagnetism are base forces, and no one says that they possess sentience. In addition, they can be measured and can produce testable, consistent effects, which God does not.
Post by
Squishalot
I can see "a" switch being flipped, and I can see the light coming on, but no one has yet offered me an explanation as to how it works. I pose that, since the light only comes on once in ten thousand times the switch is flipped, that the actual switch is somewhere else where I can't see it.
Think of it as a dynamo. You just haven't tried hard enough to turn the light on. Most people can't, some people have enough faith and love in their heart for God. *shrugs*
Anyway, I'll stop arguing the point on faith-healing, because we're getting into random analogies and away from the actual point.
First of all, I don't assume that God exists.
I didn't ask you to assume that God exists. I said that if there is a possibility that God exists, then it's a valid theory. The rest of your response to my point is meaningless in that context.
Has there never been a case of a non-religious person recovering from terminal cancer?
Can you cite one? Happy to consider it.
Hmm... I feel like I'm being taken out of context here, but I'm not sure. I only vaguely recall saying that. Perhaps I was in a particularly bad mood. Perhaps I meant I hate the denominations.
(... + other quotes)
It's in the 'Why Your Religion' thread, if you want to backtrack and find it, around page 28 or something like that.
Either way, it comes across fairly clearly that you do hate people who believe in faith-based healing, abominable homosexuality etc. Why? Because you hate ignorance, and you see that people who believe in faith-based healing are ignorant. Why do you hate people who have blind-faith? Because blind-faith is ignorant and irrational to you.
Really, it does mean that you hate all truly religious people, because they're all so damn ignorant to you. Isn't that a logical conclusion of what you're saying?
Why are we courteous, if not because it's morally right to be so?
In the words of Lou Reed: "You're gonna reap just what you sow". I believe that's built in evolutionarily.
AronRa did
a great speech
on the matter which is worth a watch if you ever get the time.
No time at work, unfortunately, but I might get back to it later.
Morals can be built in evolutionarily (is that a word?). The end goal of morals (from a non-religious sense) is to ensure a prosperous society, and as such, go hand in hand with well with evolution.
I do not hate ignorant people, I am just extremely frustrated by them, and I do not think it should be mindlessly tolerated.
Who mindlessly tolerates ignorance? Frustration is no reason to be rude and to disrespect others and their beliefs. You can respect an opinion all the while believing that it's wrong, and contesting it. Look back at how I argued with Hyperspacerebel for examples.
When someone is ignorant in the sense that they do not know or understand something, that is fine. When someone does not understand something and they fight to stay that way, that is what bugs me.
The difference is that religious people do know and understand things, it's just that you see their evidence differently, and therefore come to the conclusion that they've got no idea.
Having said that, you've been fighting for the ignorance of science for the last couple of pages. "Science can't explain something based on the laws of nature, so it shall remain inexplicable", to paraphrase. It's not ignorant to consider things outside the known laws of nature to explain inexplicable events, be they mini-variables that govern so-called quantum randomness, or a God-variable that governs the universe. Religious people have a theory, and they believe in their theory, just like the physicists who believe in hidden variables have a theory that they believe in.
God, on the other hand, seems less like a detailed theory backed by evidence, and more like a Law, like gravity or electromagnetism, which, as far as I know, are so fundamental that they can only be verified through observation.
That's your opinion. God, inherently, is a theory still, just as quantum randomness is. He doesn't impact on the world the way that the laws of gravity does.
Post by
Orranis
First of all, I don't assume that God exists.
I didn't ask you to assume that God exists. I said that if there is a possibility that God exists, then it's a valid theory. The rest of your response to my point is meaningless in that context.
Define 'valid.' I could theorize that oxygen is a hallucinogenic and that we're really all pink cows, and any evidence to the contrary is a misconception caused by the oxygen, and it would probably be even more unprovable than God. Are you going to say it's a valid theory?
Post by
Squishalot
First of all, I don't assume that God exists.
I didn't ask you to assume that God exists. I said that if there is a possibility that God exists, then it's a valid theory. The rest of your response to my point is meaningless in that context.
Define 'valid.' I could theorize that oxygen is a hallucinogenic and that we're really all pink cows, and any evidence to the contrary is a misconception caused by the oxygen, and it would probably be even more unprovable than God. Are you going to say it's a valid theory?
Is there a possibility that oxygen is hallucinogenic? Because you can actually conduct the experiment and demonstrate that, as far as likelihood is concerned, it's false. You can't scientifically test the existence of God.
Edit:
Then again, going back to it, it goes back to your new thread on Descartes. It's indeed possible that we're all really pink cows, and that it's a hallucinogenic. But does it really matter? (which was Descartes's eventual conclusion)
Post by
Orranis
First of all, I don't assume that God exists.
I didn't ask you to assume that God exists. I said that if there is a possibility that God exists, then it's a valid theory. The rest of your response to my point is meaningless in that context.
Define 'valid.' I could theorize that oxygen is a hallucinogenic and that we're really all pink cows, and
any evidence to the contrary is a misconception caused by the oxygen
, and it would probably be even more unprovable than God. Are you going to say it's a valid theory?
Is there a possibility that oxygen is hallucinogenic? Because you can actually conduct the experiment and demonstrate that, as far as likelihood is concerned, it's false. You can't scientifically test the existence of God.
Edit:
Nope, that's a misconception of our universe because your observation of it is being muddled by the oxygen. You've yet to prove my theory incorrect, and I remain a pink cow until proven otherwise (if God exists because I can't disprove him.)
Post by
Squishalot
Nope, that's a misconception of our universe because your observation of it is being muddled by the oxygen. You've yet to prove my theory incorrect, and I remain a pink cow until proven otherwise (if God exists because I can't disprove him.)
You missed my edit, which addresses this point :)
Post by
Skreeran
Think of it as a dynamo. You just haven't tried hard enough to turn the light on. Most people can't, some people have enough faith and love in their heart for God. *shrugs*So God grants miracles based on how
hard
you believe?
So my belief just wasn't strong enoguh for a miracle, then, right?
And now I'm an atheist?
Gee, God really could have saved me a lot of emotional pain and philosophical confusion if he had just given me a tiny miracle. I guess I just didn't pray hard enough.
I think I'll go tell those bone cancer kids to pray harder too. Clearly their still having cancer is just because they and their families just aren't believing hard enough. Shame on them for keeping their child in such tremendous pain by not praying adequately!
Can you cite one? Happy to consider it.I will happily look for one. I'm pretty certain that I can find one, given enough time.
Of course, non-faith healing is a lot less sensational than faith-healing, and has a lot less backing by the church. In addition, there are about three times as many religious people than there are non-religious, and that's using optimistic numbers.
But I'll look.
It's in the 'Why Your Religion' thread, if you want to backtrack and find it, around page 28 or something like that.
Either way, it comes across fairly clearly that you do hate people who believe in faith-based healing, abominable homosexuality etc. Why? Because you hate ignorance, and you see that people who believe in faith-based healing are ignorant. Why do you hate people who have blind-faith? Because blind-faith is ignorant and irrational to you.
Really, it does mean that you hate all truly religious people, because they're all so damn ignorant to you. Isn't that a logical conclusion of what you're saying?Not true.
Most religious people are simply so brainwashed that they cannot give up what they believe they know. I pity them.
Others are driven by their belief to negatively affect other people, whether by flying planes into buildings or by verbally abusing homosexuals. It is those people that I hate.
The difference is that religious people do know and understand things, it's just that you see their evidence differently, and therefore come to the conclusion that they've got no idea.
Having said that, you've been fighting for the ignorance of science for the last couple of pages. "Science can't explain something based on the laws of nature, so it shall remain inexplicable", to paraphrase. It's not ignorant to consider things outside the known laws of nature to explain inexplicable events, be they mini-variables that govern so-called quantum randomness, or a God-variable that governs the universe. Religious people have a theory, and they believe in their theory, just like the physicists who believe in hidden variables have a theory that they believe in.There is a difference.
I say: There are a number of theories for how this happened. A, B, and C, don't fit very well with the laws that we've established based on our observations of the universe. There must be a theory D that we haven't discovered yet that better fits the data.
And a religious person says: C is correct. I know it in my heart. I have faith. I believe it. It is the only answer.
Another religious person says: B is correct. I know it in my heart. I have faith. I believe it. It is the only answer. Die infidel!
Another religious person says: A, B, and C are all correct. Everyone is right.
An agnostic say: I dunno. Maybe it's A. Maybe it's B. Maybe it's something else. Could be any one of them.
----------
I am agnostic in some ways. If Jesus came to my house and resurrected my dead pets, I would give consideration to his claims. My mind isn't closed. However, based on the evidence that I have observed, I find that the God-theory is unlikely.
I don't positively believe that no god exists. However, I don't give those theories much credence either.
It is possible that the earth is flat. Or that a massive man is holding up the universe. However, in the absence of credible evidence to lend weight to those theories, I find them unlikely.
Post by
Orranis
Edit:
Then again, going back to it, it goes back to your new thread on Descartes. It's indeed possible that we're all really pink cows, and that it's a hallucinogenic. But does it really matter? (which was Descartes's eventual conclusion)
Are you implying that God doesn't matter?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
You can't scientifically test the existence of God.
Which is exactly why it is impossible to
prove
that God was responsible for an action.
It's perfectly fine to suppose God did it, and it's even perfectly fine to make the necessarily irrational decision to believe this fact
without
proof (in fact many religions demand you do exactly this). It's improper, however, to act as though this
serves as
proof, or to disparage those who continue to search for a non-divine explanation.
It's close to insulting Religious Faith to compare Faith in God to Faith in Science as though they are one and the same, because Science
can
be tested and proven, and wouldn't qualify as Science if it couldn't. Faith in God requires that you accept as true that which cannot be proven.
Even the much-touted "Quantum Randomness" you keep bringing up isn't comparable, because none of the researchers are simply saying "Oh, it's just random" and sitting content as though they had
proven
anything -- they keep searching. Once you "conclude" that God is the explanation, there's no further research to be done, and your claim cannot be proven or tested.
Post by
Monday
It's perfectly fine to suppose God did it, and it's even perfectly fine to make the necessarily irrational decision to believe this fact without proof (in fact many religions demand you do exactly this).
To you it's irrational, to me it is not.
And before you go and pity or think less of me, I do not simply just
believe
. I have had many miraculous things happen to me, along with things that affirm my faith.
The question is, do you believe that I can be rational and religious at the same time? I think that Skree is saying no to that question for what I can see.
Post by
Heckler
To you it's irrational, to me it is not.
And before you go and pity or think less of me, I do not simply just
believe
. I have had many miraculous things happen to me, along with things that affirm my faith.
The question is, do you believe that I can be rational and religious at the same time? I think that Skree is saying no to that question for what I can see.
If God has spoken to you, then you have the right to call that proof -- but you can't expect anyone to accept your word as though it were God's when you relate the story. For you, having had a Revalation from God himself, it would be proper in your own mind to call this rational. For me, having not seen God whisper in your ear, it still appears irrational.
My point is that Faith being Irrational does not take any value or worth away from it in a Religious context, in fact, its what gives it any value at all. Had God not spoken to you, would you still believe? Of course you would. The proof you have is not the source of your belief, only the confirmation, which was likely not required.
But again, you cannot expect someone who has not personally spoken to God to accept your claim as though it carried the same weight. If this person thinks you're irrational, you should accept that -- and it shouldn't bother you, you
know
God exists.
Post by
Skreeran
The question is, do you believe that I can be rational and religious at the same time? I think that Skree is saying no to that question for what I can see.Well, what I'm saying is that religious belief is irrational. However, perfectly rational non-ignorant people can believe in god. It's not because they are irrational or ignorant people, it is because an irrational fact has been drilled into the mind since a psychologically vulnerable age.
Post by
Orranis
The question is, do you believe that I can be rational and religious at the same time? I think that Skree is saying no to that question for what I can see.Well, what I'm saying is that religious belief is irrational. However, perfectly rational non-ignorant people can believe in god. It's not because they are irrational or ignorant people, it is because an irrational fact has been drilled into the mind since a psychologically vulnerable age.
I'd edit age and replace it with time.
Because of converts. For example, the guy who has a near death experience and is cured by 'faith healing,' he's at a psychologically vulnerable period of time.
Post by
Squishalot
So my belief just wasn't strong enoguh for a miracle, then, right?
And now I'm an atheist?
You do realise the irony of those two questions, right?
Most religious people are simply so brainwashed that they cannot give up what they believe they know. I pity them.
Then you don't hate ignorant people? That's contrary to what you said earlier.
Others are driven by their belief to negatively affect other people, whether by flying planes into buildings or by verbally abusing homosexuals. It is those people that I hate.
There are few of those people around, and none around here. Even MyTie doesn't verbally abuse anybody, he just repeatedly states that abortion is wrong and is an abomination. No abuse whatsoever.
You verbally abuse some religious people - does that mean that we should hate you?
I say: There are a number of theories for how this happened. A, B, and C, don't fit very well with the laws that we've established based on our observations of the universe. There must be a theory D that we haven't discovered yet that better fits the data.
And a religious person says: C is correct. I know it in my heart. I have faith. I believe it. It is the only answer.
Another religious person says: B is correct. I know it in my heart. I have faith. I believe it. It is the only answer. Die infidel!
Another religious person says: A, B, and C are all correct. Everyone is right.
An agnostic say: I dunno. Maybe it's A. Maybe it's B. Maybe it's something else. Could be any one of them.
This is a good analogy, despite being religiously intolerant - not all Muslims are militants or extremists.
The thing is, a belief in A, B or C is just as irrational as a belief that D exists with no evidence.
Are you implying that God doesn't matter?
I'm implying that he doesn't impact your life on a day-to-day basis, so there's no need to jump up and down at people who believe in him. If you believe that you're a pink cow, then meh, whatever makes you happy. I'll try to tell you that it's silly, but it won't mean rude that I'll be rude to you.
Even the much-touted "Quantum Randomness" you keep bringing up isn't comparable, because none of the researchers are simply saying "Oh, it's just random" and sitting content as though they had proven anything -- they keep searching. Once you "conclude" that God is the explanation, there's no further research to be done, and your claim cannot be proven or tested.
Firstly, I compare quantum randomness to the existence of God, not a faith-based heal. So don't put words in my mouth.
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.
Post by
Monday
For me, having not seen God whisper in your ear, it still appears irrational.
So then, if I haven't seen the experiments to prove that singularities exist can I call them irrational?
Well, what I'm saying is that religious belief is irrational. However, perfectly rational non-ignorant people can believe in god. It's not because they are irrational or ignorant people, it is because an irrational fact has been drilled into the mind since a psychologically vulnerable age.
So who to you is a rational non-ignorant religious person?
Post by
Heckler
The question is, do you believe that I can be rational and religious at the same time?
Yes and No. Concerning Religion, No I don't believe you can approach Religion rationally -- you're not supposed to.
However, I have no reason to think that someone who believes in God cannot rationally approach any other topic. To me, the danger comes when someone thinks they can rationally prove God's existence to more than themselves -- this tends to make me think that person may not be the most reliable medium for rational thought, in general.
So then, if I haven't seen the experiments to prove that singularities exist can I call them irrational?
Sure you can, but then I'd call you lazy for not seeking a rational explanation where one may exist. Therein lies the difference.
Post by
Monday
However, I have no reason to think that someone who believes in God cannot rationally approach any other topic. To me, the danger comes when someone thinks they can rationally prove God's existence to more than themselves -- this tends to make me think that person may not be the most reliable medium for rational thought, in general.
Which is why I don't try, I merely defend myself =)
Post by
Heckler
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
.
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.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.