-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are the bulk of GAF anti-religious extremists?
- Thread starter Late Stage Marxist
- Start date
- Status
Truelize said:
No, that analogy is flawed.
All humans have brains. It can be proven the professor has a brain. In any case, the comment was meant in an insulting demeaning way, rather than a true analogy.
As for cold, darkness, etc. These are things that are perceived by everyone (and don't come with a "I perceive God" stuff because as much as I respect your beliefs, it's simply unproven.)
You can feel cold (or absence of heat, whatever you want to call it.)
You can perceive darkness (or absence of light, whatever you want to call it.)
Electricity and Magnetism are concepts attributed to flow of measurable energy. It can be measured, and felt to some extent.
All this said, I believe in God. I just think it's ridiculous to blindly believe something that's meant to rally God-believing people when it's based on such flawed assumptions. Believing in God is all about Faith. You can't see him, you can't physically feel him (though it's arguable you can do so, spiritually, if such a concept was to be accepted in some way,) you can't smell him, you can't hear him, but you blindly believe in him. That's what Faith is all about. I don't need a ridiculous pep rally trying to ridicule a non believer to feel assured of my beliefs.
Moreover, it's something that can be empirically proven, even without cracking open the poor mans skull.
Just without doing so, the chain of causality is longer... you have to believe that the machines that scan the brain function properly... and there's proof that they work. But that proof requires heavy theory
But it CAN be proven.
With God... despite our best efforts, we can't prove his existence. Moreover we can provide compelling reasons for him to not exist. Even if you can't prove the professors brain exists, can you provide compelling reasons as to why it doesn't?
Just without doing so, the chain of causality is longer... you have to believe that the machines that scan the brain function properly... and there's proof that they work. But that proof requires heavy theory
But it CAN be proven.
With God... despite our best efforts, we can't prove his existence. Moreover we can provide compelling reasons for him to not exist. Even if you can't prove the professors brain exists, can you provide compelling reasons as to why it doesn't?
Spike Spiegel
Member
Can you provide compelling reasons for providing compelling reasons for God not to exist?
JoshuaJSlone said:
It's pretty easy to just say "it's not difficult to believe a human being thought of the transcendence", lol, I see why you ask (stupid me). I'll try to explain;
I'll represent all of humanity as the term "man", for the sake of simplification only;
Man = a product of chance
Consciousness of Man = product of chance
Man can see, ponder and observe "chance" and say "chance exists". So, in essense, "chance" has made itself conscious of its own existence. If molecule-to-man evolution is true then;
We went from molecule (not conscious about "chance", lifeless) to man (conscious about "chance", life). It's almost like man's conciousness is necessary for chance to finally identify itself. For example, I find it absurd to think that rabbits and rocks have the capcity to think that chance exists.
So, if chance DID make itself conscious through man then where did the variable of the transcendence come from? Surely, it must've come from man's consciousness, so;
Transcendence came from >
Man's consciousness came from >
Common Ancestor came from >
a pool of bio-chemicals came from >
pounding asteroids which carried hydrogen came from >
big bang came from >
energy, quarks, strings, etc. came from >
etc. etc.
ALL orchestrated by chance/probability. So, the abstract and invisible force of "chance" worked through the ages to finally show itself and bring the transcendence/God along with it? I might have the wrong concept of chance, but then again, if a chance-expert dude says "I have the right idea" he is being an expert on something that limited and produced the very mind that thinks of it. The paradox produced is of transcendental proportions.
"Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."
--The Case for Christianity, C.S. Lewis
Spike Spiegel said:
Only if I deny that the concept of the transcendence exists a priori would I adequately come up with compelling reasons for compelling reasons. But how can I deny the transcendence a priori if I exist and the concept of it is internalize in my conciousness?
I think that Matt Groening hit it on the head in his Simpsons episode wherein Homer becomes a genius via the removal of the brain crayon. He comes up with some compelling reasons to the nonexistance of god, and Flanders gave pretty much the exact response that one would expect.
I won't provide the compelling reasons here, because each one is a (long) focused attack on the various reasons as to why God might exist... and as they're relatively complex answers would require me to dig up text books I don't really have and provide long detailed answers to do them justice.
Suffice to say if you wish to do a self-examination of your own beliefs, taking a philosophy of religion class somewhere isn't a bad place to start. It won't make you a hardcore aetheist... but if you were clinging to the concept of christianity on any 'logical' basis then it'll shake you up pretty well.
But going back to the CS lewis remark...
even if there is a creator entity somewhere out there... there's a hell of a lot of missing links between that thing and a christian God.
Some more hardcore philosophists/physicists/whatever would propose that in fact something can arise from nothing... a pretty outlandish thought, but the reasoning they provided was a bit beyond me...
To me it would seem that the 'nothingness' that provides chance can give chance to the arising of something is akin to that creator entity... and is different from a true nothingness.
But again, that's a pretty far cry from the christian God.
Suffice to say if you wish to do a self-examination of your own beliefs, taking a philosophy of religion class somewhere isn't a bad place to start. It won't make you a hardcore aetheist... but if you were clinging to the concept of christianity on any 'logical' basis then it'll shake you up pretty well.
But going back to the CS lewis remark...
even if there is a creator entity somewhere out there... there's a hell of a lot of missing links between that thing and a christian God.
Some more hardcore philosophists/physicists/whatever would propose that in fact something can arise from nothing... a pretty outlandish thought, but the reasoning they provided was a bit beyond me...
To me it would seem that the 'nothingness' that provides chance can give chance to the arising of something is akin to that creator entity... and is different from a true nothingness.
But again, that's a pretty far cry from the christian God.
Mumbles said:
Mathematical models merely symbolize what happens. The actual number 2 is just a symbol of twoness. The concept of two is abstract. For example, 2 ketchup bottles lay infront of you. You would represent what you observe through symbols.
2 ketchup bottles are infront of me. How else would you represent an abstract object without using some symbol or mathematical model?
Math numbers, etc. represent metaphysical objects. I never said that chance is a substance of some sort, just an invisible metaphysical occurence that causes (therefore forces) things to be.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Metaphysics don't force ANYTHING, by definition. Metaphysics are a language used to describe something; hence, META.
There is no such thing are pure chance. "Chance" is simply a term used to describe situations where the mitigating factors are so numerous or complex as to defy easy human observation and analysis. You'd think a devoutly religious person would understand *that*, since the notion of chance is largely anathema to the practice of faith and prayer.
That's a pretty nutty remark from ol' Perfesser Lewis -- "the world is full of wacky shit, so I'll believe the first wacky thing I hear"? Sounds cute on a bumper sticker, at best, but it's absolutely nonsensical otherwise.
There is no such thing are pure chance. "Chance" is simply a term used to describe situations where the mitigating factors are so numerous or complex as to defy easy human observation and analysis. You'd think a devoutly religious person would understand *that*, since the notion of chance is largely anathema to the practice of faith and prayer.
That's a pretty nutty remark from ol' Perfesser Lewis -- "the world is full of wacky shit, so I'll believe the first wacky thing I hear"? Sounds cute on a bumper sticker, at best, but it's absolutely nonsensical otherwise.
Drinky Crow said:
Which is why I didn't say it that way. The word "force" is only in retrospect of something that necessarily cause something else. So if we say;
A caused B
B is contigent to A, A is necessary for B
Once B was caused, in retrospect and only in retrospect, we can say A forced B. To deny that A didn't force B is to accept that B came to be independently from A. I use the term chance to describe the abstract thing that gives the potentiality for causations. I try to be as logical as possible but if a term is too questionable most likely I will never use it again its respective context.
Sorry, I'm going WAY off-topic from the thread. Although I expect some serious comebacks to my statements and incorrect use of philosophy (if I have), I will consider them and examine them with an open mind. I am open to criticism though I have spent plenty of time on this (I type slow, think slowly, etc.) and I must resume my school work.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Yeah, I'm not sure I wanna bust out the basic philosophy and logic lectures, here.
Phoenix
Member
AstroLad said:
Really? How many people do you know that go without internet, credit cards, and Tv their entire life? Home many people kill over money (something I forgot to include) or are slaves to the acquisition of it?
I'll say it again - any time that you are relying on someone else to do something for you - those are "things we need to watch the fuck out for."
Phoenix
Member
Mumbles said:
I don't think its possible to define a being that you couldn't possibly comprehend, personally and I think anyone who tells you that they can define or even know God is misleading you. This is something that is a key that the person talking to you may be preparing to use religion to control your behaviors.
Phoenix said:
that's about how I feel about it, I think it's so far beyond our ability to understand and even beyond the simple senses that are available to us that no one in history could possibly know how things came to be. Especially all the nonsense rules and regulations among the world religions. even if we do prove a god exisits we're just going to start arguing about where god came from
Phoenix
Member
quin said:
And any person who tells you that you're going to hell because you are being inquisitive is a fool. One of the problems with organized religion is that many people in it actively discourage you from trying to examine it, believing that they have all the answers - something that simply cannot be possible.
Phoenix
Member
IJoel said:
Prove that aliens don't exist. Prove that time travel can't exist. Prove that warp travel can't exist. Prove that there aren't other dimensions. Etc, etc, etc.
What you can prove is limited by what you can observe. It is the arrogance of humanity that believes that it currently has the ability to prove anything. It was only a few decades ago that you would be considered a heretic in the scientific community if you believed that planets existed around other starts. Only a few centuries that you could be imprisoned for saying that the world wasn't flat, that the earth orbitted the sun, etc.
Please don't go down the path of human logic being the substance by which proving stuff becomes truth. It doesn't work. The amount of things that humanity CAN'T prove is likely infinite at this point. We don't even have a mechanism to unify all of physics yet - so spare me the whole 'logic' thing.
Phoenix said:
No.
I am NOT saying that only things that can be proven are true, nor I am saying humanity can prove everything. It CAN prove things that it can understand at the time. Simple as that.
What I AM saying is that in order to disprove something, it needs to be grounded on current logic and existing knowledge other than "because I believe so."
You completely missed the point.
As for situations like things that happen in the future, well, those are different circumstances and, well, an entirely different argument.
What if God decides to show up next year and say "Here I Am, Rock You Like A Hurricane" and well, prove his existance? There might've been previous unseen proof of his existance that well couldn't be catalogued as such. Does that mean that humanity has to blindly believe every hypothesis ever presented, whether it's popular or not, regardless of the recognized proof for it? No. It means that you can only make assertions based on the knowledge you have at the time and no more than that.
Phoenix
Member
IJoel said:
I guess I'm still missing it because what you're saying doesn't make any sense. There are aliens in the universe "because I believe so". There are other dimensions "because I believe so". It is possible to travel at the speed of light and faster "because I believe so". I cannot prove ANY of these because I don't have the ability to further those hypothesis in any way.
Things that are beyond our ability to prove are accepted "because we believe so".
Phoenix said:
How what I say doesn't make any sense? Those things you mention are not proven. You choose to believe in them based on unexisting proof. That you decide to believe in them is one thing, that is proven to be truth is another. Again, this has nothing to do whether it's actually truth or not (I believe God exists,) but proof for it just doesn't exist, or we haven't gotten to it or understood it yet.
I've been following this thread off and on all day. Noone will change your mind one way or another. If you believe in God, you have your faith and are strengthend by it. If you believe God doesn't exist, that's your perogative and noone should try and persuade you otherwise. This thread isn't going to change the minds of people on either side of the fence. I say live and let live.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
GUH
Is there such a thing is darkness? Is there such a thing as cold?
YES STUPID STUDENT, you can see and feel both of them. The professor should have owned that kid that arguement is bullshit. I HATE THAT EMAIL.
Is there such a thing is darkness? Is there such a thing as cold?
YES STUPID STUDENT, you can see and feel both of them. The professor should have owned that kid that arguement is bullshit. I HATE THAT EMAIL.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
cant take away a man's ilogical belief with logic as my great grand pappy use to say....
Commendable, but also the issue at hand. The problem is that the 'live and let live' part isn't happening. Evangelical Christian groups are aggressively pushing to change the Laws of the Land based upon their religious beliefs. One of the backlashes to this, predictably, is 'anti-religious extremism'. I will not "live and let live' if someone insists on making laws based on reglious dogma....
Sorry to derail the ongoing philosphical discussion, but this is the crux of the argument in my opinion- not the logic (or lack thereof) concerning the existence of god.
catfish said:
Yea, you can clearly tell a religeous person wrote that article.
Clearly every living human being has a brain, which brains have been proven as needed to live, so that point was extremely dumb, but I doubt the religeous type noticed how silly it was because most times their mind is already made up.
I admit to being agnostic, and most times I'm VERY respectfull of other peoples opinion on the subject, but if it's brought up I'll talk and debate a little about it, but if it gets pushy (I'm not saying who's doing the pushy stuff, but I think you know which side likes to force thier opinion on it) I usually just start pointing out all thier own hipocrisies untill they shut the hell up.
I mean everything they use for proof of god is the bible itself, which funny enough this all powerfull being had to have mere humans write it for him.
Too hard to write a book that's clearly understood in all languages to help those who wholeheartedly want to live his way of life, but can create entire worlds and all life ? WHATEVER!!!
Gorey said:
Laws are made by human beings and as such will always have inherent biases leaning towards the human's belief system. Whether this is a religious belief or not, the end law will still reflect whatever ideal the person wants to put forth. No 2 people can agree on every single issue.
catfish said:
Tell me about it
Somehow you're supposed to come to the conclusion that a particular convention for identifying a thermal state is synonymous with inability to prove its existence, and thus, must be faith based. The technical definition of cold is what? Taught in the first year of general science in Junior High School at the latest. It shouldn't even be an issue with this argument concerning the professor and the student, just another silly attempt to give the professor a 'taste of his own medicine', and horribly failing to do so at that.
Phoenix said:
Let me reword that for you:
The point being that you cannot prove that which you cannot observe, quantify, or measure in a scientific way. The belief of a God (which is what I consider religion), the theory of relativity, the belief of extraterrestrial intelligence, the theory(this one, I'm not sure of, since there are books explaining this using string theory) of hyperspace, etc. are by nature unprovable at this time.
I don't disagree with you (for the above reworded statement) at all. Again this doesn't mean everyone should just accept every belief merely because it's popular. As for respecting it, well I respect your right to believe in anything.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Based on prior knowledge of all other humans/mammals having brains in their head, they can best guess that the professor follows this trend.Truelize said:
EDIT: Now that I see I missed an entire page, I'd delete this superfluous remark if I could.
Phoenix
Member
IJoel said:
Couple things though - the 'theory of a God' is actually theology. Religion actually evolves and changes over time through theology and over the years. There is a theory of extraterrestrial intelligence which is what the principles of SETI are based upon (many of which I belive are flawed).
Very true. I should have been more specific, and stated clearly that I was talking about the USA.
It's right there. The goverment shall not enforce religion, nor shall it prevent people from worshipping as they see fit. Perhaps my opinion is overly simplistic, but I think that clearly states the seperation of church and state. I understand that you are coming at this from a 'humans and their biases cannot be avoided', but I see it as 'flagrantly breaking the principle of the First Amendment''.
Edit: The only reason I singled out the 'live and let live' statement isn't because I disagree with it- We SHOULD 'live and let live'. But honestly, I don't think the Evangelical movement is going to let me do that, or be countered by leaving them alone. They aren't leaving me alone.
Gorey said:
I understand your point, but the first ammendment specifically mentions "religion". So then if someone believes in God, wants to make a law based on his convictions but doesn't subscribe to or acknowledge that he belongs to any "religion" then he can pass that law? What is religion other than a belief system? You may say that not believing in God is a religion unto itself.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
No, but I for one find them entertaining thought exercises.Manics said:
Manics, your point sounds like semantics to me. But I do see where you are coming from, and obviously, trying to quantify it is, in the end, probably hopeless.
Phoenix nailed it pretty much, r/e that we are dealing with interpretations of the First Amendment. Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't clarify this point a little better...... Personally, I think the precedent for Seperation of Church and State is clear. I am, however, nothing even approximating a constitional lawyer, so don't expect seriously in depth arguments to that affect.
Phoenix nailed it pretty much, r/e that we are dealing with interpretations of the First Amendment. Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't clarify this point a little better...... Personally, I think the precedent for Seperation of Church and State is clear. I am, however, nothing even approximating a constitional lawyer, so don't expect seriously in depth arguments to that affect.
UGH.
As somewhat of an instigator in these types of threads, let me say a few things.
1. I believe that there is some sort of higher power out there. I don't know if she/he/it(huh huh, "sheit") created us from the primordial chaos or we just erupted out of violent chance. I don't think that particular tenet is central to this debate.
2. I could never believe in Christianity. There are myriad reasons for this. Jesus got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we would all just accept his father into our hearts and love each other(in so many words), and ever since then people have been getting killed, maimed, persecuted and otherwise made to suffer "in the name of Jesus, our Lord". WTF? Now I know there are plenty of decent, positive thinking and generally open minded Christians out there. Some of you are my friends. However, I also know that there are plenty of close minded, spiteful, and vindictive "Christians" that use their faith as a crutch or a bludgeon against others.
3. Also, you guys have had 2,000 years to end poverty and hunger(some things Jesus was pretty concerned about, right?) and I don't see that happening any time soon. But Pat Robertson is raking in the millions, so I suppose everything is gonna be ok, huh? How's that diamond mine coming along, Pat? How are those poor indigenous workers doing in those cramped spaces, enduring 15 hour long work days, hurting themselves and dying so that you can reach another old lady in the midwest with your "miracles"? Churches for profit are an affront to everything Jesus stood for, in my opinion. I hope Pat Robertson gets an especially toasty room in hell(maybe you could put him in with Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Stalin? Thanks for listening, Jesus).
4. Another issue with Christianity: Gandhi is going to hell. It's true. And if Osama bin Laden, for whatever reason, renounces Islam and accepts Christ as his one true saviour, he will supposedly reap his heavenly rewards. I can not fathom this. It is beyond stupid.
5. For those of you out there who keep trying to slip religion into our founding father's mouths, ponder this quote: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Who said that? Thomas Jefferson. United States President. The author of the Declaration of Independence. You know, one of the four people deemed important enough to be put on Mount Rushmore. Yeah, that guy.
Ultimately, I have no problem with religion. I am a happily practicing Buddhist and was raised a fruitcake Unitarian(something I got over, kind of like the flu or maybe the chicken pox). I believe that morality and goodness of heart and character are possible without religous beliefs and/or upbringings. If you are a moral and good person and do practice a religion, well bully for you.
However, I have a sincere problem with another person inflicting their views and beliefs upon me and my way of life. You'd think that with the history of persecution that has accompanied the Christian faith, most Christians today wouldn't be so uppitty about casting that first stone. Especially since we're all supposed to be sinners, according to the Bible.
As somewhat of an instigator in these types of threads, let me say a few things.
1. I believe that there is some sort of higher power out there. I don't know if she/he/it(huh huh, "sheit") created us from the primordial chaos or we just erupted out of violent chance. I don't think that particular tenet is central to this debate.
2. I could never believe in Christianity. There are myriad reasons for this. Jesus got nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if we would all just accept his father into our hearts and love each other(in so many words), and ever since then people have been getting killed, maimed, persecuted and otherwise made to suffer "in the name of Jesus, our Lord". WTF? Now I know there are plenty of decent, positive thinking and generally open minded Christians out there. Some of you are my friends. However, I also know that there are plenty of close minded, spiteful, and vindictive "Christians" that use their faith as a crutch or a bludgeon against others.
3. Also, you guys have had 2,000 years to end poverty and hunger(some things Jesus was pretty concerned about, right?) and I don't see that happening any time soon. But Pat Robertson is raking in the millions, so I suppose everything is gonna be ok, huh? How's that diamond mine coming along, Pat? How are those poor indigenous workers doing in those cramped spaces, enduring 15 hour long work days, hurting themselves and dying so that you can reach another old lady in the midwest with your "miracles"? Churches for profit are an affront to everything Jesus stood for, in my opinion. I hope Pat Robertson gets an especially toasty room in hell(maybe you could put him in with Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Stalin? Thanks for listening, Jesus).
4. Another issue with Christianity: Gandhi is going to hell. It's true. And if Osama bin Laden, for whatever reason, renounces Islam and accepts Christ as his one true saviour, he will supposedly reap his heavenly rewards. I can not fathom this. It is beyond stupid.
5. For those of you out there who keep trying to slip religion into our founding father's mouths, ponder this quote: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Who said that? Thomas Jefferson. United States President. The author of the Declaration of Independence. You know, one of the four people deemed important enough to be put on Mount Rushmore. Yeah, that guy.
Ultimately, I have no problem with religion. I am a happily practicing Buddhist and was raised a fruitcake Unitarian(something I got over, kind of like the flu or maybe the chicken pox). I believe that morality and goodness of heart and character are possible without religous beliefs and/or upbringings. If you are a moral and good person and do practice a religion, well bully for you.
However, I have a sincere problem with another person inflicting their views and beliefs upon me and my way of life. You'd think that with the history of persecution that has accompanied the Christian faith, most Christians today wouldn't be so uppitty about casting that first stone. Especially since we're all supposed to be sinners, according to the Bible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll